From lojban+bncCIywt_XDCRDFsZvuBBoEeoBUow@googlegroups.com Sun May 08 10:54:29 2011 Received: from mail-gw0-f61.google.com ([74.125.83.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QJ8BT-0000bE-P0; Sun, 08 May 2011 10:54:28 -0700 Received: by gwb11 with SMTP id 11sf6469020gwb.16 for ; Sun, 08 May 2011 10:54:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:x-beenthere:received-spf :x-yahoo-newman-property:x-yahoo-newman-id:message-id:x-ymail-osg :x-mailer:references:date:from:subject:to:in-reply-to:mime-version :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post :list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe :content-type; bh=F+7mjsntpMYxSJWRezKv18sSjEIk7uzTEbNRp/K2jLc=; b=XSzuEWt8sL4gnm5vScpyVGydbnQmwIYN2btbprGyEzgV+mXKHEo+i47blSmePAGZp5 8b3DivTfx+Mq5Oweqg23nyEpYwjHEdi31vuxsKF8FmHKcmdUFKoIAS0luj+adDowKZFM ng8ZrQlQfkqefy0nG45yRN8Je6RD45BkkBFOA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:x-yahoo-newman-property:x-yahoo-newman-id :message-id:x-ymail-osg:x-mailer:references:date:from:subject:to :in-reply-to:mime-version:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; b=g++mFeL6ccoWkicb5LFh2rciZu8VnjGiYfeonuSMkqpQiMjYCiXuROsuhIarWNHq1j djm+GxIhjFH1vNOBu0R2QCS/8mQo0anaAEsBeip5FtTwo5rDYBQrUpapSwKE05aKZ+s4 nPfFG/5lLFADQds+pcAfk7qexrBoMI4uVaTRM= Received: by 10.146.132.30 with SMTP id f30mr594433yad.25.1304877253963; Sun, 08 May 2011 10:54:13 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.150.135.9 with SMTP id i9ls2765313ybd.4.gmail; Sun, 08 May 2011 10:54:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.170.68 with SMTP id o44mr1547878yhl.66.1304877253193; Sun, 08 May 2011 10:54:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.170.68 with SMTP id o44mr1547877yhl.66.1304877253184; Sun, 08 May 2011 10:54:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm15-vm0.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com (nm15-vm0.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com [66.94.236.17]) by gmr-mx.google.com with SMTP id x65si452757yhn.7.2011.05.08.10.54.12; Sun, 08 May 2011 10:54:12 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 66.94.236.17 as permitted sender) client-ip=66.94.236.17; Received: from [66.94.237.199] by nm15.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 08 May 2011 17:54:11 -0000 Received: from [66.94.237.125] by tm10.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 08 May 2011 17:54:11 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1030.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 08 May 2011 17:54:11 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 872338.42297.bm@omp1030.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 71140 invoked by uid 60001); 8 May 2011 17:54:11 -0000 Message-ID: <707972.67778.qm@web81302.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: c1L752wVM1meYdFnSrCjaZJ5JKcmRCA_ilWMbGuF0i_GMsP yui3ehgDTRmLDMHrK0i1Lh2HxmrFIVXPZVp8AU9mjO0g7C2sIW5e4uAqg0q. xX10Kxy.6G8i0Wt8S3ZIkqgtY6ENSRTyeAvvvcokLY6jbqCCqeDN4WTF9Uap dnPVSyHL4rgxkW6zuxQkNwLuGrPcugzNtwpLQwfPrGuImJI7ZYKTYb96ReQG vN63Ai24xFJPw9IDgtNX84j9UdyuqynyelHyVai10as8iTv1zs2MmmS_fZVE FJ3PvtX7VSzM1_IQT7JdNxIaY1H0J3pUrXSg3ob0vW4Odg3O0_.HJa8hPn0A I71ZZ5pNdhRP6VVh9qEqfzzXcl7yzBEA6JtnEL7Pe3jaq.J02tFLvGUdsCHu liB3GMYq.ueO5yKkHDJP69E.lVFtnKstyWXJ.6.gkD1zJEwQVmm_qZvtnj_o N3qh7ZspZejoNs5BpDgOMS0wYa87OIp3oBTLOUrXXCioRkrULmyzEjMKUFlq 7Jdymp5V6ybh5TuH8CGk1s_vrNK0se8ZsZOTtC_3OPXU0_A-- Received: from [99.92.108.41] by web81302.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sun, 08 May 2011 10:54:11 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/559 YahooMailWebService/0.8.110.299900 References: Date: Sun, 8 May 2011 10:54:11 -0700 (PDT) From: John E Clifford Subject: Re: [lojban] "to think that ..." To: lojban@googlegroups.com In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-Sender: kali9putra@yahoo.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 66.94.236.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=kali9putra@yahoo.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@yahoo.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 The usual formal logic languages don't have a place for the various intensional objects (events, propositions, ideas. etc) that Lojban has, so they have to deal with such cases in the way suggested (and need another predicate, obviously, for "X knows that Y likes Z", with no logical connection between them). Certain kinds of modal logics (epistemic) have functors, more or less like quantifiers, except taking free terms, that function more or less like {djuno} or {jinvi} and then take regular sentences as followers. So the original sentence would now be xTyLz, say. The included sentence is now in an intensional context (so refers to its proposition) but is still not a term. In full intensional logic (if there really were such a thing), there would be an operator which turned sentences into names for propositions and which then could go in second place of a predicate "thinks" xT^(yLz) sorta. Each of these steps allows for more logical connections to be made explicit, for example, in the last case, that one person knows what another only believes, give wK^(yLz). Lojban, somewhat ahead of formal logic in this respect (though behind it in other related cases) goes straight to this last form. But, as noted, there is still a lot unknown in intensional logic, so it is not clear that this is altogether a logical gain. ----- Original Message ---- From: tijlan To: lojban@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, May 8, 2011 12:00:11 PM Subject: [lojban] "to think that ..." I was reading an article on finitary relation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finitary_relation which gives this sentence "X thinks that Y likes Z" as an example of ternary (three-argument) relation. That isn't how "to think that ..." is commonly represented with a Lojban selbri: "X jinvi lo du'u Y nelci Z" In this bridi, X relates only indirectly to both Y and Z as parts of another single abstract argument ("lo du'u ..."). Excluding the implicit x3 and x4 of "jinvi", this expression is binary, not ternary. I wonder if one of the approaches is logically more preferrable than the other in making the same statement. Or do they make logically different statements? mu'o -- 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=en. -- 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=en.