From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Fri Apr 08 14:02:10 2005 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 08 Apr 2005 14:02:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.44) id 1DK0c6-0005Jk-Ny for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 14:02:02 -0700 Received: from thestonecutters.net ([63.251.19.112] helo=chert.thestonecutters.net) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1DK0c3-0005Bt-PT for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 14:02:02 -0700 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p78-77.acedsl.com [66.114.78.77]) by chert.thestonecutters.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E34E14800D for ; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 16:34:17 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4256F13E.5060406@thestonecutters.net> Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 17:01:50 -0400 From: 2 = 3 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.9 (Windows/20041103) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] ATTN: McIvor (was: Re: Re: Hintikka on Quantifier Scope References: <20050408173334.49345.qmail@web81303.mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <20050408173334.49345.qmail@web81303.mail.yahoo.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.90.0.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 9792 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: xod@thestonecutters.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list John E Clifford wrote: >--- 2 = 3 wrote: > > >>John E Clifford wrote: >> >> >> >>>I seem to recall something like this >>>was proposed once a long while ago using >>> >>> >>modified >> >> >>>Skolem functions in place of particular >>>quantifiers (and eventually groups -- bunches >>> >>> >>-- >> >> >>>for value to make the numeric cases work). >>> >>> >>> >>It would be interesting to see the Skolem >>function proposal. >> >> Do you remember anything about the Skolems? Or is that the same proposal from Loglan? >>Loglan (!) gets round the issue by explicitly >>declaring the mapping, if >>I recall correctly. >> >> >> >I wonder if the proposal was not back in the >Loglan days; I can't find it in any Lojban >material I can search. > One of the Loglan people (Bob McIvor, possibly?) mentioned it during one of our discussions of {3 dogs bite 2 men: how many bitings occurred?]. I just searched the main list and jboske archives and didn't find it. > When I try to reconstruct >it, the plan that feels most familiar has a cmavo >sumti which takes subordinate arguments of the >variables or whatnot that govern it, on the order >of {foo be da bei gy (referring back lo gerku} >bei ko'a} and so on. But I have no guarantee >that this faithfully reproduces the proposal (or, >come to that, that the proposal does not exist >only in my nonveridical memory). > > What is your take on IF Logic? Can it express ideas not expressible without it? Is it simply a disguise for 2-order logic? -- If it rained, it did not rain hard. It did rain hard. Therefore it did not rain.