On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 6:57 PM, Ivo Doko
<ivo.doko@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6 January 2011 02:42, Jonathan Jones
<eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 6:25 PM, Ivo Doko
<ivo.doko@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6 January 2011 01:40, Luke Bergen
<lukeabergen@gmail.com> wrote:
actually I read it the same way.
Esperanto is X, Y, and Z. lojban is far from being [that] at the moment.
=
lojban is far from X, Y, AND Z.
=
lojban is far from X AND lojban is far from Y AND lojban is far from Z.
If that's not what you meant to communicate maybe you should try saying it in lojban next time ;)
Wow, you guys need to learn your logic. Let's do it properly:
A = "lojban is fully defined."
B = "lojban is complete."
C = "lojban is a functioning language."
"lojban is not a fully defined, complete and functioning language" can be written as:
.i la.lojban. na mulno smugau je mulno je tolpo'u bangu
jboski parse
¬(A ∧ B ∧ C)
which is equivalent to:
¬A ∨ ¬B ∨ ¬C
which is:
"lojban is not fully defined, or lojban is not complete, or lojban is not a functioning language."
.i la.lojban. na mulno smugau gi'a na mulno gi'a na tolpo'u bangu
jboski parse
Like I said, we tend to think Lojbanically about logic. Notice how the two sentences, translated into Lojban, mean entirely different things.
Wrong on both counts.
Where:
A = "lojban is fully defined."
B = "lojban is complete."
C = "lojban is a functioning language."
"lojban is not a fully defined, complete and functioning language" = "lojban is not A, B, and C." = "lojban is not (A, B, and C)." = {.i la.lojban. na mulno smugau je mulno je tolpo'u bangu}
"lojban is not fully defined, or lojban is not complete, or lojban is not a functioning language." = "lojban is (not A) or (not B) or (not C)." = {.i la.lojban. na mulno smugau gi'a na mulno gi'a na tolpo'u bangu}