From lojban-out@lojban.org Fri Nov 08 04:16:21 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 8 Nov 2002 12:16:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 27233 invoked from network); 8 Nov 2002 12:16:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 8 Nov 2002 12:16:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Nov 2002 12:16:21 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18A83h-00013a-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Fri, 08 Nov 2002 04:16:21 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18A83A-00013E-00; Fri, 08 Nov 2002 04:15:48 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 08 Nov 2002 04:15:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from mxout3.netvision.net.il ([194.90.9.24]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18A835-000132-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 08 Nov 2002 04:15:44 -0800 Received: from default ([62.0.146.147]) by mxout3.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 0.8 (built Jul 12 2002)) with SMTP id <0H590095MBD9GP@mxout3.netvision.net.il> for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 08 Nov 2002 14:15:11 +0200 (IST) Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 14:15:39 +0200 Subject: [lojban] Re: importing ro To: "lojban-list@lojban.org" Message-id: <0H590095NBDAGP@mxout3.netvision.net.il> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Foxmail 4.1 [eg] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-archive-position: 2535 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: araizen@cs.huji.ac.il Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: Adam Raizen From: Adam Raizen Reply-To: araizen@cs.huji.ac.il X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 17036 de'i li 2002-11-07 ti'u li 23:26:00 la'o zoi. And Rosta .zoi cusku di'e >> So it's not obvious that the *only* possibility in logic is that AxFx >> -> ExFx on its own, without the additional postulate of a non-empty >> universe > >That's why I listed (2) as something we can agree on. Or at least we >can agree on it enough that the issue of import dies as a bone of >contention. Well, as I already said, I don't in general accept it. While it is very probable that the real universe is not empty, I may want to reason about a universe of discourse which might turn out to be empty, so for me even an unrestricted universal quantification does not have existential import. mu'o mi'e .adam.