I think the idea is that the empty set is equal to itself so something t= hat evaluates to "nothing" is equal to something else that evalua= tes to "nothing".=A0 e.g. "roda poi gerku je mlatu" =3D= "noda"=A0 therefore=A0 "ro da poi gerku je mlatu cu broda&q= uot; is true for every broda in the same sense that "noda cu broda&quo= t; is true for every.... wait, that's not true so I dunno

On Jun 1, 2011 5:51 PM, "Jorge Llamb=EDas&q= uot; <jjllambias@gmail.com&g= t; wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Mich= ael Turniansky
> <mturniansky@gmail.com= > wrote:
>> 2011/5/31 Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
>>>
>&g= t;> Who said anything about making "ro da poi broda" =3D "= ;no da poi broda"?
>>
>> =A0Let me rephrase. =A0When you said, " If there = are no cat-dogs, it's [
>> "ro da poi =A0ke'a gerku j= e mlatu cu broda"] true, since for every value
>> of da it wi= ll be false that da gerku je mlatu.", that means that there
>> are no cat-dogs.
>
> Right.
>
>>=A0 I= n a universe where "ro da poi gerku je mlatu" is a
>> no= mei,
>
> There's no such universe. "ro da poi gerku j= e mlatu" is a quantifier,
> so it cannot be a nomei, whatever a nomei is (I think nothing is in> fact a nomei, by definition, but a quantifier is certainly not a
&= gt; nomei).
>
>> "no da poi gerku je mlatu" refer= s to the same thing (an empty
>> set).
>
> No, quantifiers don't refer, they quant= ify,
>
> In a universe where there are no cat-dogs, both "= ;ro da poi gerku je
> mlatu cu smacu" and "no da poi gerku = je mlatu cu smacu" happen to be
> true. Is that what you are saying? But neither of those expressions> includes a reference.
>
>>=A0But my major point was s= imply =A0that =A0all things that are
>> cat-dogs are in fact a nom= ei.
>
> First you would have to explain how anything at all can be a = nomei. My
> understanding is that "ro da zo'u da su'o me= i", "For every x, x is
> something". No thing is a no= mei.
>
>> So for any broda, " ro da poi ke'a
>> g= erku je mlatu ku'o va'o lo du'u da nomei cu broda" is true= .
>
> You are now leaving logical simplicity behind by introdu= cing this
> "va'o lo du'u da nomei" term. If we try to expand yo= ur sentence to
> logical form, we get:
>
> ro da zo'= u ganai da gerku je mlatu gi da va'o lo nu da nomei cu broda
> > Now, for each value of "da", "da gerku je mlatu" i= s false, and "da
> nomei" is also false.
>
> S= o ganai ... gi ... is true because the first part is false. What did
> the never satisfied "va'o lo du'u da nomei" term add= ?
>
>> Which I
>> contend is precisely what "= [ro] lo no gerku je mlatu cu broda" means
>> and is therefore= always true. =A0I know, I know. You all disagree that
>> it's meaningful. But then you come around and assert what I co= nsider
>> to be the very same thing, just phrased differently.
= >
> I don't think we are saying the same thing at all. I assu= me you are
> not saying that "ro lo PA gerku je mlatu cu broda" expands t= o "ro da
> poi ke'a gerku je mlatu ku'o va'o lo du&#= 39;u da PAmei cu broda", but I
> don't really know what it i= s you are saying it expands to.
>
> mu'o mi'e xorxes
>
> --
> You rec= eived this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lo= jban Beginners" group.
> To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googleg= roups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@goo= glegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.goo= gle.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=3Den.
>