Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 23:00:07 -0600
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Subject: [lojban] Is importing ro *really* "normal" in modern logic? (Re: importing ro)
Message-ID: <20021108050007.GA81099@allusion.net>
References: <1c4.13f7f2f.2afc69dc@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="+HP7ph2BbKc20aGI"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1c4.13f7f2f.2afc69dc@aol.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Precedence: bulk
From: Jordan DeLong <lojban-out@lojban.org>
Reply-To: fracture@allusion.net
Content-Length: 2798
Lines: 72

           
--+HP7ph2BbKc20aGI 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 08:14:04PM -0500, pycyn@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 11/7/2002 3:11:29 PM Central Standard Time,=20
> jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:
> <<
> > 2 is not really needed for either position. 1 is our position,
> > but pc has always spoken out against it. He does not approve
> > of {ro broda cu brode =3D ro da ga na broda gi brode}, and I am
> > convinced we will never reach an agreement about this.
> >>
> Yes, Lojban is spoken logic, supposedly.  Logic has two universals which =
it=20
> typically represents in surface structures very close to the two putative=
=20
> equivalents.  Should we not follow it in this?  Or can we now toss over a=
ll=20
> the other connections with Logic as well: make {a} XOR, and {anai} contra=
ry=20
> to fact and so on paractically ad inf?  It makes a perfectly sensible=20
> language, maybe even a more sensible one from some points of view than=20
> Lojban, but it ceases  to be Lojban (or any Loglan, for that matter).  So=
,=20
> where is the point of no return on this?
[...]
> Yes, though, it will rarely make a difference.  Which makes me wonder wha=
t=20
> secret agenda folks have that makes them make such a fuss about the regul=
ar=20
> position.

In another message:
> >You are using the set (A+E-I+O-)
> >for the forms {Q broda cu brode}.
>=20
>Yes, the traditional set from Logic since Aristotle (with occasional
>aberrations).

Ok, so you say importing universals is normal in logic, but google
seems to think that, though Aristotle had importing universals,
that changed after Boole.  All the pages I could find are interested
in A-E-I+O+ (which is also the position that requires the least
change to resolve the contradiction the book makes on the subject,
btw).  There's even a name for the fallacy of assuming that universals
import, called the Existential Fallacy.

Obviously, you know what you're talking about with this stuff. So,
a simple question for you:  Why do you say that modern logic primarily
uses importing universals?

Or are you not talking about modern logic...  If this is the case,
we *should* be using xor for {a} as you suggest (in a slippery slope
fallacy I might add): that's what the greeks used for disjunction.

More likely though is that there's more to the history of importing
universals than this...

--=20
Jordan DeLong - fracture@allusion.net
lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u
                                     sei la mark. tuen. cusku
           
--+HP7ph2BbKc20aGI 
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

[Attachment content not displayed.]           
--+HP7ph2BbKc20aGI--