Re: Chief logician?

[Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>]

Randall says:

> There is a good reason for the precedence to go the other way,
> unless you also reverse the usual convention for implicit quantification:
>
> the point is that P[John and James] means roughly the same thing as
> "For all x in {John,James}, P[x]", and, similarly, P[Mary and Sally]
                                                            ^^^
                                                            or, I think

> means roughly the same thing as "For some x in {Mary,Sally}, P[x]";
> where two of these connected arguments appear in a sentence, one has
> essentially the same problem one has with the usual form of implicit
> quantification as in
>
> Someone loves everyone
>
> versus
>
> Everyone is loved by someone

Yes, I see your point. In fact, the paper on connectives doesn't really
mention that case. It says that

        broda ije brode ija brodi

is grouped from left to right:

        (broda ije brode) ija brodi

and from there I generalized to assume that the first connective is
bound tighter.

Maybe it should be the other way around when the connectives are in
different terms.

There is still going to be counterintuitive cases, though:

        da prami la djan e la djeimyz
        Someone loves John and James

means the same as:

        la djan e la djeimyz se prami da
        John and James are loved by someone

in both cases, the quantification is: For some da; for all x in {John; James}.

> Of course, I know that the underlying "expanded" form of the sentence
> does not involve application of logical connectives to arguments;
> I'm a logician, remember?

Of course :)

But you did mention something about negation of arguments being allowed
in Loglan...

Jorge