From jcowan@reutershealth.com Fri Nov 08 04:10:54 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jcowan@reutershealth.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 8 Nov 2002 12:10:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 95636 invoked from network); 8 Nov 2002 12:10:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m7.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 8 Nov 2002 12:10:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail2.reutershealth.com) (65.246.141.151) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Nov 2002 12:10:54 -0000 Received: from skunk.reutershealth.com (IDENT:cowan@[10.65.117.21]) by mail2.reutershealth.com (Pro-8.9.3/Pro-8.9.3) with SMTP id HAA29371; Fri, 8 Nov 2002 07:22:53 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200211081222.HAA29371@mail2.reutershealth.com> Received: by skunk.reutershealth.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 8 Nov 2002 07:08:52 -0500 Subject: Re: [lojban] Attempting to bring the ro debate to a resolution To: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk (And Rosta) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 07:08:52 -0500 (EST) Cc: lojban@yahoogroups.com (Lojban@Yahoogroups. Com) In-Reply-To: from "And Rosta" at Nov 08, 2002 11:41:55 AM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL6] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: John Cowan X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=8122456 X-Yahoo-Profile: john_w_cowan X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 17035 And Rosta scripsit: > The position supported by everybody except pc (= me, xorxes, Jordan, > Adam, Nick + probably xod & Robin -- everybody who's participated, > & probably the remainder of Lojbanists too) is this: > > A. ro broda cu brode = ro da poi broda cu brode > B. ro da poi broda cu broda = ro da ga na broda gi brode > C. ro broda cu brode = ro da ga na broda gi brode > > The position supported by pc is that C is definitely invalid, while > either one of A and B may be declared valid, with the other one > declared invalid (though his preference is for A to be valid and > B to be invalid). Well, I must break consensus on this. The position here labeled pc's is definitely mine as well. (I take it, however, that all of ABC are true if there are a non-zero number of brodas.) In fact, I will strengthen it by saying that A is true by definition, and B and C are false. To me, (1) the unconditional form "Each globnik is spatulous" (ro [da poi] broda cu brode) entails that there are globniks, whereas (2) the conditional form "For each thing, if it is a globnik, then it is spatulous" (ro da ganai broda gi brode) does not. Consequently, since there are no globniks, "Each globnik is spatulous" is trivially false, whereas "For each thing, if it is a globnik, it is spatulous" is vacuously true. Is there a (pc-less, John-less) consensus about the truth values of (1) and (2)? It would seem to be consistent with the consensus to reject either of them. > Each position is partially but not fully consistent with CLL (which > itself is not internally consistent). I still don't understand where the inconsistency is. > The debate about whether the universal quantifier and/or ro is > importing is pretty much a red-herring, because it boils down to > a question of the effect of an empty universe on truth values. I agree. -- One art / There is John Cowan No less / No more http://www.reutershealth.com All things / To do http://www.ccil.org/~cowan With sparks / Galore -- Douglas Hofstadter