Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 11:21:17 -0500
Message-Id: <200412021621.iB2GLHIP012264@mole.e-mol.com>
To: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org
From: Matt Arnold <mattarn@123.net>
Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: Where can I learn more about logic?
In-Reply-To: <20041202150536.78998.qmail@web41903.mail.yahoo.com> 
References: <200412021435.iB2EZmIP000408@mole.e-mol.com> <20041202150536.78998.qmail@web41903.mail.yahoo.com> 
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org
Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org
Content-Length: 2211

  Thanks xorxes!
  It astonishes me that a Lojbanist would write “[Ix]( Gx & [Ay](Fy <=> y=x))” on a Lojban website of all things, when it's possible to say it in Lojban instead. Here we have the great advantage of a language that makes predicate logic speakable so that I as a beginner can look it up in wordlists or use jbofi'e the online Lojban-to-English translator. In all other uses of Lojban we could just speak English to make ourselves understood to the non-expert, but here Lojban is actually more accessible even if through a couple of steps. And yet this advantage went unused where it is most needed. I see what Robin meant about PC.
  That having been said, jbofi'e returned a syntax error on your string. But I've translated it as follows.
  Take it for a given that there exists this one thing. Whatever that may be, it is in such-and-such a relationship. Also, each of whatever the second thing is. OK now take all that stuff as a given as well. That second thing, is in this other such-and-such a relationship, if-and-only-if the second thing shares the exact same identity with the first thing.
  As I learned Lojban vocabulary, I long ago passed up "zo'u" since "end prenex" means absolutely nothing to me and I thought it was specialized expertise that would not be useful in normal language. Have I translated it correctly as taking something as a given or an axiom? Even if not, I'm a whole heck of a lot closer to figuring it out from Lojban than I would be with “[Ix]( Gx & [Ay](Fy <=> y=x))”.
- la .epcat

lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org wrote:
>--- Matt Arnold  wrote:
>> If Bertrand
>> Russell's quote “[Ix]( Gx & [Ay](Fy <=> y=x)).” is any indication, the
>> practice of symbolic logic invented a new language already. Just not a
>> speakable one.
>That goes more or less directly into Lojban:
>I: su'o
>x: da
>[ ]: zo'u
>G: broda
>&: ije
>A: ro
>y: de
>F: brode
><=>: ijo 
>=: du
>With Lojban grammar, we have:
>[Ix]( Gx & [Ay](Fy <=> y=x))
>su'o da zo'u da broda ije ro de zo'u de brode ijo de du da
>Almost word for word.
>mu'o mi'e xorxes

_______________________________________________________
Sent through e-mol. E-mail, Anywhere, Anytime. http://www.e-mol.com