From lojban+bncCML0xpmUARCJs5jpBBoEXrVIxw@googlegroups.com Thu Jan 06 11:35:53 2011 Received: from mail-pw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.160.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Pavcj-0006DV-5v; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 11:35:52 -0800 Received: by pwi2 with SMTP id 2sf5175093pwi.16 for ; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 11:35:43 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:x-beenthere:received:received:received :received:received-spf:received:mime-version:received:received :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=9p2VJcTWgw/4wfREnLszcTWvYeUqE0/7U3KdXsgcU9U=; b=LZCuIXAt+LcnDQ+FvX2/BAJYDgYxVt/M5RNpZx1IvbgcHs8RS+0HuzDgA4TlpHFxoW kIF9E3eEO8eFxC3DYHnfn3VEKj1KCV+sgDx+uFgIKnIduZ1eDBhJxYetG1M3NHh2YNi6 vk+5t/vgBZ1K0bA58qF6/rmNyn5Nu5fSZVsLM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; b=21xpQr4guuhccw+Mavot8a2rUaJz5xws3HOZMB8NIZJ0Og1vXaAVVrF3BaxPAkByPd QDIHhZA2upI3QWLDkxkIqXpJTKU/Y1P36bWg4N5VH1lJxKqp2BKH+6+3WjqHTCMev+hM V9I1jxYyOrTpOaf9CJaoFgREYy+obasBjaBbo= Received: by 10.142.250.38 with SMTP id x38mr83798wfh.59.1294342537915; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 11:35:37 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.142.2.41 with SMTP id 41ls26221928wfb.0.p; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 11:35:36 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.142.81.21 with SMTP id e21mr1030382wfb.28.1294342536939; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 11:35:36 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.142.81.21 with SMTP id e21mr1030381wfb.28.1294342536909; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 11:35:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pv0-f194.google.com (mail-pv0-f194.google.com [74.125.83.194]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id m3si1320659wfl.1.2011.01.06.11.35.35; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 11:35:35 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of blindbravado@gmail.com designates 74.125.83.194 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.83.194; Received: by pva18 with SMTP id 18so3067850pva.5 for ; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 11:35:35 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.142.131.7 with SMTP id e7mr1065774wfd.316.1294342535693; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 11:35:35 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.142.103.17 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Jan 2011 11:35:35 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4D25F6F2.7050205@gmail.com> References: <9114501.161.1294150198377.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqhy19> <7c0687a1-deba-495a-9760-95d1d0649423@t8g2000prh.googlegroups.com> <20110105165231.GK17534@digitalkingdom.org> <20110105220532.GN17534@digitalkingdom.org> <4D25D915.9080305@lojban.org> <4D25F6F2.7050205@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 13:35:35 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Lojban is *NOT* broken! Stop saying that! (was Re: [lojban] Re: Vote for the Future Global Language) From: Ian Johnson To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: blindbravado@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of blindbravado@gmail.com designates 74.125.83.194 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=blindbravado@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd29cbc0ec7a20499329b6a --000e0cd29cbc0ec7a20499329b6a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ...What? You're trying to distinguish between: ~(A(x) ^ B(x) ^ C(x)) and ~A(x) ^ ~B(x) ^ ~C(x) Lojban has plenty of ways to do this. Here's one: naku ko'a broda gi'e brode gi'e brodi vs. ko'a na broda gi'enai brode gi'enai brodi These are completely different sentences. On the other hand, if you actuall= y go through and try to say the same thing in English, you actually wind up with virtually identical sentences: It is not the case that ko'a X and Y and Z vs. ko'a doesn't X and doesn't Y and doesn't Z. "It is not the case that" is stylistically horrible, however, which is why classes on logic taught in English spend probably an entire week on the concept of a "useful negation" and thus introducing the De Morgan laws, wha= t happens to quantifiers when a statement is negated, etc. So the issue is really not with English, it's with idiomatic English. You can more or less remove ambiguity in "rigid" contexts like these, but when you try to also add in flavor and life to your English (such as in "X is fa= r from being A, B, and C", which incidentally I read as ~(A(x) ^ B(x) ^ C(x))= , as a counterexample to someone who was saying any native English speaker would read it the other way), it becomes extremely hard to preserve the lac= k of ambiguity. Lojban makes this a hell of a lot easier; UI alone is a tremendous help. Also, for what it's worth, I've used prenexes quite a bit, and don't consider them especially hard to read. Hell, one of {me'ei}'s dominant uses is {ro me'ei bu'a zo'u}. mu'o mi'e .latros. On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 11:08 AM, And Rosta wrote: > Robert LeChevalier, On 06/01/2011 15:00: > > Ivo Doko wrote: >> >>> Wow, you guys need to learn your logic. Let's do it properly: >>> >>> A =3D "lojban is fully defined." >>> B =3D "lojban is complete." >>> C =3D "lojban is a functioning language." >>> >>> "lojban is not a fully defined, complete and functioning language" can = be >>> written as: >>> >> >> Not it can't. Your summary sentence is NOT >> =C2=AC(A =E2=88=A7 B =E2=88=A7 C) >> >> The closest English can come to that is >> "It is not the case that lojban is fully defined, and that lojban is >> complete, and that lojban is a functioning language." and even that is >> potentially ambiguous in several ways, because the words themselves are >> ambiguous given differing contexts. (for example, "Lojban is complete" a= nd >> "Lojban is a complete language" are not necessarily identical in meaning= .) >> >> Your summary sentence uses "not" as a contrary rather than contradictory >> negation, and combines the three independent logical terms into a single >> complex modifier of the word "language". It thus is NOT the same as the >> three separate sentences, logically ANDes and the whole negated. >> >> Lojban makes the differences extremely clear. English obviously does not= . >> > > In English, logical scope tends to be ambiguous, at least within the same > clause. So English "not A, B and C" can mean "It is not the case that eac= h > of A,B,C is the case" or "For each x, where x is one of A,B,C, it is not = the > case that x is the case". > > Unless it has been fixed by recent BPFK action, Lojban has *exactly the > same ambiguity* with regard to logical scope between elements that are no= t > explicitly prenexed. (At least Lojban has the option of prenexing to > eradicate ambiguity, but it is an option almost never used and that if of= ten > used would be received with opprobrium as stylistically objectionable.) > > --And. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "lojban" group. > To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den. > > --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den. --000e0cd29cbc0ec7a20499329b6a Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ...What? You're trying to distinguish between:
~(A(x) ^ B(x) ^ C(x))=
and
~A(x) ^ ~B(x) ^ ~C(x)

Lojban has plenty of ways to do thi= s. Here's one:

naku ko'a broda gi'e brode gi'e brodi=
vs.
ko'a na broda gi'enai brode gi'enai brodi

These a= re completely different sentences. On the other hand, if you actually go th= rough and try to say the same thing in English, you actually wind up with v= irtually identical sentences:

It is not the case that ko'a X and Y and Z
vs.
ko'a doesn= 't X and doesn't Y and doesn't Z.

"It is not the ca= se that" is stylistically horrible, however, which is why classes on l= ogic taught in English spend probably an entire week on the concept of a &q= uot;useful negation" and thus introducing the De Morgan laws, what ha= ppens to quantifiers when a statement is negated, etc.

So the issue is really not with English, it's with idiomatic Englis= h. You can more or less remove ambiguity in "rigid" contexts like= these, but when you try to also add in flavor and life to your English (su= ch as in "X is far from being A, B, and C", which incidentally I = read as ~(A(x) ^ B(x) ^ C(x)), as a counterexample to someone who was sayin= g any native English speaker would read it the other way), it becomes extre= mely hard to preserve the lack of ambiguity. Lojban makes this a hell of a = lot easier; UI alone is a tremendous help.

Also, for what it's worth, I've used prenexes quite a bit, and = don't consider them especially hard to read. Hell, one of {me'ei}&#= 39;s dominant uses is {ro me'ei bu'a zo'u}.

mu'o mi&= #39;e .latros.

On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 11:08 AM, And Rosta <= span dir=3D"ltr"><and.rosta@gmail= .com> wrote:
Robert LeChevalier, On 06/01/2011 15:00:

Ivo Doko wrote:
Wow, you guys need to learn your logic. Let's do it properly:

A =3D "lojban is fully defined."
B =3D "lojban is complete."
C =3D "lojban is a functioning language."

"lojban is not a fully defined, complete and functioning language"= ; can be written as:

Not it can't. Your summary sentence is NOT
=C2=AC(A =E2=88=A7 B =E2=88=A7 C)

The closest English can come to that is
"It is not the case that lojban is fully defined, and that lojban is c= omplete, and that lojban is a functioning language." and even that is = potentially ambiguous in several ways, because the words themselves are amb= iguous given differing contexts. (for example, "Lojban is complete&quo= t; and "Lojban is a complete language" are not necessarily identi= cal in meaning.)

Your summary sentence uses "not" as a contrary rather than contra= dictory negation, and combines the three independent logical terms into a s= ingle complex modifier of the word "language". It thus is NOT the= same as the three separate sentences, logically ANDes and the whole negate= d.

Lojban makes the differences extremely clear. English obviously does not.

In English, logical scope tends to be ambiguous, at least within the same c= lause. So English "not A, B and C" can mean "It is not the c= ase that each of A,B,C is the case" or "For each x, where x is on= e of A,B,C, it is not the case that x is the case".

Unless it has been fixed by recent BPFK action, Lojban has *exactly the sam= e ambiguity* with regard to logical scope between elements that are not exp= licitly prenexed. (At least Lojban has the option of prenexing to eradicate= ambiguity, but it is an option almost never used and that if often used wo= uld be received with opprobrium as stylistically objectionable.)

--And.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojba= n?hl=3Den.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.
--000e0cd29cbc0ec7a20499329b6a--