Re: any

[jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU]

djer:
> > su'o da zo'u tu'e da plise inaja mi cidja da
> > I eat some apples. (They exist).

xorxes:
> This is not what the Lojban sentence claims. In Lojban, you wrote:
> "there is some x, such that if it is an apple, I eat it". This statement
> is always true. It suffices to select some non-apple for da, and since
> in that case {da plise} is false, the whole statement is true for at least
> that da whether I eat it or not, and therefore the statement is true.

djer:
>         What the sentence claims is:
>         IF there is at least one object x such that x is an apple,THEN I
>         eat x.
>         I believe you have misplaced your IF.

What the sentence claims is:
        There is at least one x such that: IF x is an apple THEN I eat x.

Notice that the quantification is in the prenex before the {tu'e}, and
therefore does not apply only to the first part but to the whole thing.

>         For my sentence to be always true it would have to be a
>         tautology.

No, it is not a tautology. It is always true because {da naku plise} is always
true. At least one thing is not an apple. The statement would not be always
true only in a universe where everything is an apple.

> Jorge>
> I think by "l'alfa" and "l'sma" you mean the same I wanted to get with
> {pa xe'e} and {su'o xe'e}.
>
> GK>     Not exactly. Alpha-any means " one taken at random, or
>         indiscriminately". Pa-xe'e can mean one taken according to an
>         order or plan.

Not my {xe'e}. The way I'd define it is something like: "Potentially everyone
but only one and no other, and none fits the predication in actuality". It is,
as you say, not definable within predicate calculus, as I understand it.

>         Sigma-any means " more than one and less than all."

That sounds like {so'i}, or some other of the series.

>         Su'o-any means "at least one".

{su'o} by itself already is "at least one". {su'o xe'e} would be: "Potentially
every one and it must be one or more (potentially), but none in actuality".

>         I find it strange that I have
>         wound up arguing for the change, and you seem to be opposed.

It wouldn't be the first time that I argue for opposing sides, but no,
I'm still in favour of {xe'e}, as long as it is not used without thinking
for every meaning of "any".

Jorge