[lojban] Re: na scope. Again.

[Jorge "Llambías" <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar>]

--- Martin Bays wrote:
> While we're on the subject... Is the BPFK or anyone else ba'o a ca a pu'o
> working on the various problems with the interaction between negation,
> unprenexed quantifiers and infix connectives, as raised e.g. by pycyn on the
> wiki some months (years?) ago
> (http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Logic+Language+Draft+3.1)?

I am doing the section on NA, which should cover some of that. My 
intention is to propose an interpretation where the scope of {na}
is restricted to what follows it. 

> Last I heard much of the semantics in even slightly complicated cases was
> ill-defined. Is this still the case?

Yes. We always have the option of using the well defined 
structure: i.e. explicit prenex quantification, negation 
only in the prenex and forethought connectives. Hopefully we 
will come up with consistent rules for how all other 
structures can be expressed in terms of the well defined one.

mu'o mi'e xorxes



		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. 
www.yahoo.com