I think the idea is that the empty set is equal to itself so something that evaluates to "nothing" is equal to something else that evaluates to "nothing". e.g. "roda poi gerku je mlatu" = "noda" therefore "ro da poi gerku je mlatu cu broda" is true for every broda in the same sense that "noda cu broda" is true for every.... wait, that's not true so I dunno
On Jun 1, 2011 5:51 PM, "Jorge Llambías" <
jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Michael Turniansky
> <
mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2011/5/31 Jorge Llambías <
jjllambias@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>> Who said anything about making "ro da poi broda" = "no da poi broda"?
>>
>> Let me rephrase. When you said, " If there are no cat-dogs, it's [
>> "ro da poi ke'a gerku je mlatu cu broda"] true, since for every value
>> of da it will be false that da gerku je mlatu.", that means that there
>> are no cat-dogs.
>
> Right.
>
>> In a universe where "ro da poi gerku je mlatu" is a
>> nomei,
>
> There's no such universe. "ro da poi gerku je 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
> nomei).
>
>> "no da poi gerku je mlatu" refers to the same thing (an empty
>> set).
>
> No, quantifiers don't refer, they quantify,
>
> 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.
>
>> But my major point was simply that all things that are
>> cat-dogs are in fact a nomei.
>
> 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 mei", "For every x, x is
> something". No thing is a nomei.
>
>> So for any broda, " ro da poi ke'a
>> gerku je mlatu ku'o va'o lo du'u da nomei cu broda" is true.
>
> You are now leaving logical simplicity behind by introducing this
> "va'o lo du'u da nomei" term. If we try to expand your 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" is false, and "da
> nomei" is also false.
>
> So 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. I know, I know. You all disagree that
>> it's meaningful. But then you come around and assert what I consider
>> to be the very same thing, just phrased differently.
>
> I don't think we are saying the same thing at all. I assume you are
> not saying that "ro lo PA gerku je mlatu cu broda" expands to "ro da
> poi ke'a gerku je mlatu ku'o va'o lo du'u da PAmei cu broda", but I
> don't really know what it is you are saying it expands to.
>
> mu'o mi'e xorxes
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.
>