In a message dated 4/27/2002 4:19:11 PM Central Daylight Time, araizen@newmail.net writes:I don't think than 'result' has much to do with proofs and conclusions (despite Yes, that's probably better. It's amazing how little logical terminology is easily available in "the logical language." I think we have gone round on this before, but I can't find the previous "decision" for "proof." <I think that 'ru'a' is supposed to be used for hypotheses, maybe in conjunction with 'da'i.> Well postulates seem to me to be different from the kind of ad hoc suppositions that play a role in proofs, though I'm not sure I could explain what the difference was. In any case, I think that there are at least a couple of other cases in the corpus where {da'i} and {da'inai} were used to bracket various kinds of indirect proofs within greater proofs (maybe both negative proofs in the cases that I can think of), so usage seems to be on toward established, since I can't think of a case with {ru'a}. (Postulations seem to be more a part of explanation that of proof and thus to rely on something that comes before rather than what comes later, but that is all very rough.) |