Entail, Implicate (was: not only

[Value Yourself <xod@sixgirls.org>]

On Fri, 20 Apr 2001 pycyn@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 4/20/2001 12:07:30 AM Central Daylight Time,
> xod@sixgirls.org writes:
>
>
>
> > How about a definition of the differences between "implicature",
> > "implication", and "entail"? The jargon is getting impossibly thick here.
> >
>
>
>
> When you play these games, it helps to have all the cards.
> *P entails Q*:  Q follows from P by logical rules alone (assuming a complete
> system -- otherwise Q is true in every model in which P is true)  For the
> basics we use classic bivalent first order logic with identity.  After that
> it is a bit less clear: the alethic modalities (necessity and possibility)
> seem to be S5 (universal connections among possible worlds) with implicit
> postulates for special cases (physically possible, technically possible,
> humanly possible, and the like).  The deontic modalities aren't clear at all
> (and not just for Lojban), the temporal ones seem to be for linear dense
> (maybe continuous) time without end points, unbranching to the past but
> possibly branching to the future, aspects handled as intervals and points in
> that time.  The descriptors have a variety of rules, not all of them clearly
> formulated, but we tend to err on the side of generosity for the most part.



Does anybody who needs to ask what "entail" means understand "classic
bivalent first order logic", "alethic modalities", "S5", or "deontic
modalities"? I hope I don't need all this to be able to think clearly or
use Lojban effectively.


I gather that "entail" refers to logical deduction (nibli), and
"implicate" refers to induction (tolsucta)?



------
1.Why are you measuring the measure? The measure is the same. Even after
Great One, the bones will be broken. I am telling you. Relic should believe me.
2.Where after religion you believe in religion and wish that to Ora.
Emptiness is that what Baby God's Eye is fighting for.