Re: [bpfk] {ro}, existential import and De Morgan

[mukti <shunpiker@gmail.com>]

I'm a fan of the "unofficial commentary" on the gadri, and would be interested in reading another such treatment of this distinction -- between the language and the model.

The idea that the language need not be committed to a particular model appeals to me: There seems to have been a lot of argumentation about which model is "better" -- whether "better" is understood as more intuitive, closer to natural language usage, more in tune with modern/traditional logic, etc. Perhaps it's the undecidable nature of such arguments which led John Cowan to predict that there would be no resolution to my original questions.

I'm not inclined to accept that no resolution is possible: It seems to me that there is sufficient general agreement to ensure that subsequent descriptions of the language handle this issue in such a way as to address the concerns that have been raised in the past. I welcome guskant's offer to elaborate such a proposal.

mi'e la mukti mu'o

On Sunday, November 23, 2014 10:44:22 PM UTC-6, guskant wrote:

From a theoretical point of view, Chapter 16 of CLL describes something out of a language. As long as it introduces a theory on truth value, it is a kind of model theory. The problems regarding the current text of Chapter 16 are caused by two points:

1-1. It does not make clear the distinction between a language and a model;

1-2. It mixes up several models (of Aristotle and of a classical predicate logic guessing from the previous discussion of the current thread) without making clear which model each statement is based on.

My idea to improve the text of Chapter 16 consists of three points:

2-1. Assert first that Lojban is a language, and that this chapter describes some models that can be expressed by Lojban.

2-2. Explain mainly a model based on the classical first-order predicate logic, because this model is most widely used in modern scientific theories.

2-3. However, emphasize that Lojban can do more, including intuitionistic logic, modal logic, multivalued logic, higher-order logic etc. (Actually I spoke to philisophers on this idea last year in Japanese : http://youtu.be/lzqhNYCWKLo?list=UU0k-Re5fyJXl4bGKSJLpkSA

I am very sorry for not yet translating it into English. You will find some traces of the speech also in la jbovlaste, for example http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/bu'ai .) We _can_ take even a model aristotelian, though the model is too weak to be applied for modern sciences.

If some of you agree to my idea, I will prepare an unofficial version of Chapter 16 of CLL, just like I did for xorlo gadri (http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=gadri:+an+unofficial+commentary+from+a+logical+point+of+view ) but trying to write in easier style to be understood by non-logicians.

pei mu'o

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BPFK" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.