On Mon, Dec 23, 2002 at 02:49:47PM +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote:
> la djorden cusku di'e
> > > Even if you don't agree about the details of this, to see how
> > > DeMorgan works with fractions it is better to write them as:
> > >
> > > pisu'o loi broda = su'o lu'o su'o broda
> >
> >No. pisu'o loi [ro] broda == pisu'o lu'o ro broda
>
> Ok, I can see we will never agree about that.
> Just use: pisu'o loi borda = "some fraction of all broda"
Heh.
[...]
> >If it is not the case that all of it does not
> >broda, then some of it must broda.
>
> No. If it is not the case that I don't eat the whole pie
> it does not just follow that I eat some of it. It follows
> that I eat the whole of it.
This has nothing to do with anything though. That's naku naku piro
lei cidja cu se citka mi, which DeMorgan doesn't even enter into---just
remove the negations. If you push things around with DeMorgan you
get the expected results though ("It is false that there is some
of the food that I don't eat").
> Conversely: That the whole pie is such that I don't eat
> it all does not mean that there is no fraction that I eat.
piro lei cidja naku se citka mi does mean there is no fraction that
you eat. piro lei cidja na se citka mi allows that you might have
eaten a fraction.
I don't see how any of this helps your default quantifer foobar.
--
Jordan DeLong - fracture@allusion.net
lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u
sei la mark. tuen. cusku
Attachment:
pgp00103.pgp
Description: PGP signature