John E Clifford wrote:
--- 2 = 3 <xod@thestonecutters.net> wrote:John E Clifford wrote:I seem to recall something like this was proposed once a long while ago usingmodifiedSkolem functions in place of particular quantifiers (and eventually groups -- bunches--for value to make the numeric cases work).It would be interesting to see the Skolem function proposal.
Do you remember anything about the Skolems? Or is that the same proposal from Loglan?
Loglan (!) gets round the issue by explicitlydeclaring the mapping, if I recall correctly.I wonder if the proposal was not back in the Loglan days; I can't find it in any Lojbanmaterial I can search.
One of the Loglan people (Bob McIvor, possibly?) mentioned it during one of our discussions of {3 dogs bite 2 men: how many bitings occurred?]. I just searched the main list and jboske archives and didn't find it.
When I try to reconstruct
it, the plan that feels most familiar has a cmavo
sumti which takes subordinate arguments of the
variables or whatnot that govern it, on the order
of {foo be da bei gy (referring back lo gerku}
bei ko'a} and so on. But I have no guarantee
that this faithfully reproduces the proposal (or,
come to that, that the proposal does not exist
only in my nonveridical memory).
What is your take on IF Logic? Can it express ideas not expressible without it? Is it simply a disguise for 2-order logic?
-- If it rained, it did not rain hard. It did rain hard. Therefore it did not rain.