[lojban] Re: Sets and classes

["Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>]

la djorden cusku di'e

>The selcmi noda = na selcmi is done by exploiting something in
>chapter 16 (search for ``External Bridi Negation'') and then ignoring
>the fact that "na selcmi" implies something different:
>
>   selcmi noda ==
>   selcmi naku da ==
>   naku zo'u selcmi da ==
>   na selcmi da
>
>this is all find and good.  But for some reason people decide to
>drop the da after the point, claiming it's the same as na selcmi.
>Though perhaps the zo'e could be "da", it is at the least misleading,
>and at the most plain wrong.

Certainly {na selcmi} does not entail {na selcmi da}, because
{zo'e} could be a particular value from context such that its
relationship is being denied, so they are clearly not equivalent.

But does not {na selcmi da} entail {na selcmi}? How could the
second one be false if the first one is true?

One could ask, does {lo selcmi be no da} belong to {lo'i selcmi}?
I don't see how it could.

{zilselcmi} should cover all sets though, including the empty one.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


_________________________________________________________________
Join the world?s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
4 DVDs Free +s&p Join Now
http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/ySSFAA/GSaulB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/