[lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all}

["Jorge Llambías" <lojban-out@lojban.org>]

On 7/19/06, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> I guess I don't see why d-truth implies c-truth; that was certainly
> not the intentio.  Where did I slip up?

I'm not saying it does. I can't really tell from the definitions whether
it does or it doesn't, it would depend on what the n-place
functions I(P) are.

What I'm saying is this: If d-true implies c-true, then there is no point
in defining "true" as "d-true or c-true". If d-true does not imply c-true,
then there are cases that I would want to be true, but which are neither
d-true, nor c-true, so defining true as d-true or c-true is not enough.

An example:

 The boys, who were wearing hats and carrying chairs, formed a line.

Each of the boys wears a hat, so "the boys wear hats" is d-true,
and threfore it is true.
All the boys form a line together, so "the boys form a line" is c-true
and therefore it is true.
The boys carry chairs in pairs, therefore "the boys carry chairs" is
neither d-true nor c-true, but I still want it to be plain true.

If the boys carrying chairs in pairs makes "the boys carry chairs" c-true,
then surely the boys carrying chairs individually must make it c-true as well.
If not, then the definition of c-true would seem to be just true but
not d-true,
and the introduction of the I(P) functions doesn't add anything that I can see.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.