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

[John E Clifford <lojban-out@lojban.org>]

--- Jorge Llamb�as <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 intention.  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.

The intention was that d-true and c-true were independent, that is a certain simple sentence could
be one or the other or both. So far as I can tell it works out that way.  If each of the
individuals among those referred to has the property then the sentence about it is d-true, if the
individuals together have the property then the sentemce is c-true.  Consider "carries furniture"
applied to three movers: each of them carries a chair say, one pair carries a table, a slightly
different pair carries a bureau and the third pair carries a bookcase, then they all three carry
the bed.  Clearly, each of them carries furniture (the chairs) and clearly the three of them do
too -- independently of the fact that each of them does. Now, insofar as carrying furniture is
concerned, does all the pairwise cases add anything?  Would they if they did not all carry the
bed?  Would they if no one carried a piece by himself?  Would they if one person did not take part
in the pairwise moving? It seems to me that "carried furniture" is pretty broad and does not go
into details about how it was done, so that d and c seem enough.  On the other hand, the functions
are set up to take the numbers between 1 and all together into account (though that was not why
the intermediate numbers are there), so a finer analysis is possible.  I suppose we could expand
the notion of "collective" by spelling out the various ways it could be satisfied, though I am not
sure we would ever get a totally acceptable list of all the combinations that count -- any
combination of individual and subgroup participation that encompassed all eventually seems to be a
minimal requirement, I suppose. At this point,I don't see the need to do it, however. 

> 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.

OK, but it does not seem to imply in that way and it does not appear that, as the functions are
set up and intended, there are any gaps.  That is, HOW they get the property together is not
mentioned, only that they do.
 
> 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.

So far as I can see, this is (in the present system) simply c-true: the chairs collectively were
there and now are here and the agency of the change was the boys together somehow.
 
> 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.

I agree, in this case.  But it could be c-true without their carrying them individually (as in
your example above), so it could be c-true and not d-true.  On the other hand,"the students wore
hats" is d-true but not c-true (on a normal reading) (I suppose there are variant readings that
could make it c-true but not d-true and one that could make it both).  Long discussions about men
biting dogd (or conversely) suggest that it is often sufficient just to take collective readings,
although the more specific versions are sometimes interesting and even important.  I'll want to
make allowances for that somewhere eventually, presumably as theses about "collectively" but I
don't see that I need them for the present issue. 

> 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.
> 
> 



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.