[lojban] Re: priority of se and na/nai in logical connectives

["Jorge Llambías" <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On 6/11/08, namor <eldrikdo@gmail.com> wrote:
> Am Mittwoch 11 Juni 2008 01:50:13 schrieb Jorge Llambías:
> > broda .isejunai brode
> > = broda .iseju na brode
> > = na brode .iju broda
> >
> > i.e. true whenever brode is false (FTFT).
>
> For the first line, "i.e. true whenever brode is false (FTFT)" is true.

The three lines have the same meaning. The truth table FTFT refers
to the two things connected by {isejunai}, i.e.

broda  brode   broda.isejunaibrode
   T        T                  F
   T        F                  T
   F        T                  F
   F        F                  T

> For the last line, however, this isn't true as far as I understand, as: {na
> brode .iju broda} is FFTT, not FTFT.

The third line is just another way of writing {broda isejunai brode}.
The table FTFT corresponds to the truth values of the whole thing
as a function of those of broda and brode

> Consider a truth table for {na brode .iju broda} or {brode .inaju broda}
> respectively.
> Here, A is the first (brode) and B is the second (broda)
> A B  R(esult)
> T T  F [(not true) whether or not true]
> T F  F [(not true) whether or not false]
> F T  T [(not false) whether or not true]
> F F  T [(not false) whether or not false]
>
>
> This example, again, suggests se has higher priority than nai.

There is no {se} in {iju} or {inaju}, so how does that tell you
anything about which has priority?

If you add a {se}, it's {inaseju}, which has truth table TTFF, i.e.
the same as {iseju}, because the negation affects the
truth-irrelevant side. The fact that {inaseju} is grammatical and
{isenaju} ungrammatical also indicates that the negation always
negates the bridi on its side.

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.