Re: [lojban] RE:Trivalent Logics

["Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>]

la pycyn cusku di'e

> The assignments of functions to terms looks about
> right and the means of using the functors in different contexts does recall
> much of the Aymara approach (so far as i understand it).

I realized something else about those assignments after I
posted it. The three assertions:

cai (1,-1,-1) necessarily
sai (1,0,0) probably
ru'e (1,1,-1) possibly

are the three that differ minimally from the simple
assertion (1,0,-1). Maybe that is why they are useful
and the easiest to understand. (The fourth minimal
variation, (0,0,-1) is not an assertion, as it doesn't
start with 1.)

> I also haven't checked to see whether the system xorxes gives is minimal
> (i.e., could we do it with fewer functors), but I suspect it is not -- as I
> am sure that the Aymara system is not.

It is not minimal. For example, {ru'e} is equivalent
to {naicainai}. (Possible = not necessarily not.)

But we don't want a minimal system because some functions
become unusably cumbersome.

> xorxes' system lacks one interesting
> feature of Aymara, that negation is not a primitive functor, but, since
> negation is a given in lb, that would be hard to recreate, in spite of the
> interesting thoughts it brings to mind.

I tried assigning (-1,1,0) to {nai} but it becomes too different
from the binary meaning of {nai}. In any case, {cu'i} = (0,1,-1)
is -1. What would that be? A counter-negation?

> (In Aymara, negation is something
> like "it is certain that it is controversial that," where certainty and
> controversiality are primitive functors).

Isn't (-1,1,0) just plain controversial? I think "necessarily
controversial" is (-1,1,-1).

With my proposal, "controversial", or trivalent negation, comes
out as {naicu'i}, something like "doubtful that not".

(-1,1,-1) is {cu'icai}, "necessarily doubtful".

> lb does not provide any natural way of upgrading this to a system of binary
> connectives unless the gi's that got us into trouble the last time around 
> can
> be called to our aid.

Maybe it does: do'egi<f1> ... gi<f2> ... vau<f3>

> (I hope they -- or something else -- can be, since
> being able to absorb a totally unexpected and odd system would be a nice
> demonstration of some property or other than lb is supposed to have.)

Yes, it is working out very nicely.

co'o mi'e xorxes


________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com