Are you a teacher? Your ability to confuse a simple situ= ation is profession-worthy. The short answer is "No". The two s= entences do not necessarily point to the same object -- a truth value, I su= ppose, or a proposition or a state of affairs -- in either way. In th= e real world, never mind alternate ones, they mean different things and so = may have different truth values and so on down the line (or up it, dependin= g on your ontologies).
I am not sure what z is here, but it does not muc= h matter; I suppose the point is that x and y have been assigned the same v= alue but could, in the course of the run,.come to have different ones, wher= eas whatever value is assigned x is automatically assigned to z as well.&nb= sp; The problem is that you two sentences are not even as alike as x and y, let alone x and z (which I would suppose is something like na-shifting,= for example -- however that is working this year).
Let's begin by assum= ing that 'lo gerku' has the same referent(s) in both sentences. So, t= he first sentence says that none of those referents is while. The sec= ond says that those referents collectively are not white. Except when= there is only one referent, it is not perfectly clear what the referents b= eing (or not being) collectively white means. On one notion of partic= ipation, this would simply make no sense, or, at least, would be categorica= lly false, and so the second sentence would be true, whether or not the fir= st was. On another, the truth of the first would compel the truth of = the second, but not conversely (this version amount to taking 'lo gerku cu = blabi' as 'ro lo gerku cu blabi') On a third reading, the two would b= e strictly equivalent, by na-shifting, essentially. And there are other readings that fall in between.
Being a logical languag= e doesn't mean all problem are solved; it merely means the confusions are a= t a higher level (or deeper structure).

From: Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com>
<= b>To: lojban@googlegroups.com=
Sent: Mon, May 2, 2011= 11:04:59 AM
Subject: R= e: [lojban] xorlo and default quantifiers

So, in programming terms:

x =3D "hello"

y =3D "hello"

z =3D x;

Now, x and y are "equal" in the sense = that they have the same "meaning". But x and z are "equal" in a much = more fundamental way. They are 2 different pointers but they are poin= ting at the same object.

In that sense, I am asking if {no lo gerku cu blabi} an= d {lo gerku cu na blabi} are "equivalent" in the sense that "x" and "y" are= . OR are they "equal" in the sense that "x" and "z" are?

The difference being, it is possible that in some unive= rse "x" and "y" could potentially be different (as in, maybe I just haven't= thought of a way yet which they are different). While "x" and "z" ar= e the exact same thing.

Another way to think of it is: I understand "equivalenc= e" to mean "they amount to the same thing" while "equality" is "one can be = derived from the other in a direct way so that it is logically impossible f= or the 2 things to differ" i.e. they share the same identity, they are just= different expressions of the same thing.

Just because 2 things always MEAN the same thing, does = that mean that they ARE the same thing?

broda cei = lo gerku ku na blabi .i brode cei no lo gerku ku blabi .i xu lo du'u broda = cu mintu lo du'u brode .ixu lo du'u broda cu simsa lo du'u brode kei roda .= ixu lo du'u broda cu me lo du'u brode

On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 11:23 AM, J= ohn E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:

If you do assume thatt lo nanmu cu bevri lo pipno has an = implicit ro in front, you will misunderstand what it says.
no is not a n= umber like the others, being defined by a negation, though it does re= present a digit. used on an argument, it affects the whole proposition (as = does every quantifier), in this case by putting a negation somewhere in it.=
Incidentally, whether you take noun phrases as referring to objects or L-se= ts, no is not a permissible internal quantifier.
The apple eating exampl= es are not equivalent, since 'lo plise' in one need not have the same refer= ent as 'plise' in the second. In the second 'plise' refers to all app= les (in the domain), in the first 'lo plise' refers to apples which may be = contextually specified (less than all). So the second imples the first but not conversely. (What do you mean by "are teh statemen= ts the same?" other than "do they mean the same thing" -- clearly they are = different sentences.)

From: Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, May 1, 2011 11:04:56 PM

Subject: Re: [lojban] x= orlo and default quantifiers

mmm, good points. I guess what I was getting at is, just because ther= e are no default quantifiers doesn't mean that people are going to use cont= ext to assume them. (for example, you assume that {ro lo nanmu cu bev= ri lo pipno})

And also that seems weird. {no} is a number just like = {pa}, {re}, {su'o}, or {so'i}. It seems weird that using it as a quan= tifier of a sumti can directly effect the selbri in ways that other numbers= can't.

I understand intuitively why that is the case. Bu= t it still feels strange. I kind of have to wonder if {mi na citka lo= plise} and {mi citka no plise} really are identical (I know that the meani= ngs of the statements are the same, but are the statements themselves the s= ame as each other)

2011/5/1 Jorge Llamb=EDas = <jjllambias@gmail.com>

On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 5:08 PM, Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com> wrote:
> So I was thinking about this earlier today and came to a realization. = If
> xorlo says that there are no default quantifiers for {lo} then wouldn'= t {no}
> be a reasonable possibility for the assumed quantifier?

No, there isn't an assumed quantifier either.

> e.g. {mi citka lo plise}. {lo plise} has no outer quantifier (im= plicit or
> explicit), but I suspect that most people will pick up from context th= at I
> in fact {citka pa lo su'opa plise} or something like it.

It will depend on the context, but as an isolated sentence I would translate it as "I eat apples". It doesn't even have to be about any
specific occasion. I suspect that "I eat exactly one of the at least
one apples" is not one of the most common interpretations.

> Furthermore, if I
> said {mi nelci lo nu tcidu .i mi ponse lo cukta} I would think that pe= ople
> would read that as something like {mi ponse so'o lo so'i cukta} or som= ething
> like it.

I would read it as "I like reading. I own books." I don't think I
would read it as "I own several of many books".

> So if context can change the assumptions that the tecusku makes about = the
> secusku, then couldn't one of those assumptions be {no lo cukta} since= there
> is no proscribed default?

No, because "no" contains a negation. If you say "mi citka" you can't=
expect people to understand that you mean "mi na citka". Similarly, if
you say "mi citka lo plise" you can't expect anyone to understand that
you mean "mi citka no lo plise".

> Either the default quantifiers of {lo} should be {su'o} or it should b= e
> reasonable to assume that {mi xebni lo nu tcidu .ija'ebo mi ponse lo c= ukta}
> could be understood as {mi xebni lo nu tcidu .ija'ebo mi ponse no lo c= ukta}.

But "lo" has no quantifiers, default or otherwise. Why do you want to=
force one on it?

> In my mind the latter is an unsafe assumption and I suspect that= most
> tecusku would respond with something like {.ue do cusku lo du'u brodad= o na
> nelci lo nu tcidu .iku'i do ji'a cusku lo nu do ponse lo cukta .i va'o= lo nu
> broda kei mi sruma lo nu na brode}. Therefore, I argue that even= if the
> grammar claims that {lo} has no default quantifiers, people read lojba= n with
> the assumption that {lo}'s implicit quantifiers are {su'o}.
> Thoughts?

I at least don't.

Here is an example where "su'o" fails:

lo ci nanmu ca'o bevri lo pipno.
"Three men are carrying a piano."

It would not occur to me to conclude that at least one of the three
men is carrying a piano, my assumption would be that they are all
three doing it together.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

--
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@googlegro= ups.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@googlegro= ups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.googl= e.com/group/lojban?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@googlegro= ups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.googl= e.com/group/lojban?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/lojba= n?hl=3Den.