RE: [jboske] pc's comments on Nick's: "Monty's Unicorns, Fermat version", and acouple other issues

[And Rosta <arosta@uclan.ac.uk>]

The bit that went over my head was "names are quantifiers". The rest I didn't
understand, but not for a lack of a vague handle on the terminology.

--And.

>>> lojbab@lojban.org 01/08/03 03:44pm >>>
At 05:09 AM 1/8/03 +0000, And Rosta wrote:
>some more responses to pc's other comments:
>
> > >The bit about a name having to have a property to be used comes from the
> > >fact that names are quantifiers (this cuts the grammar size roughly in
> > >half, eliminating a vast array of duplicates) and quantifiers are all
> > >restricted (second order relations between sets). Taking the properties
> > >to be a haeceity was a mistake I remember arguing with (probably) Gaifman
> > >back when I was studying to be a Nyayika and so a believer in
> > >visheshas. Even without vishesha, using this as haeceity seems to me a
> > >bad idea, since it makes transworld comparisons (ctfs like "If Socrates
> > >were a Seventeenth century Irish washerwoman") impossible to deal with
> > >naturally
>
>Unfortunately this went over my head. If anyone can explain it to me
>at my level, I'd be interested.

They're in the wiki in the logician's jargon section, under nyayaika and 
vishesha, and presumably explain what pc is referring to, but I won't 
pretend to understand.

lojbab

-- 
lojbab lojbab@lojban.org 
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org 



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
jboske-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com 

 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/