Re: [lojban] Meaning of multiple negations

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Ian Johnson <blindbravado@gmail.com> wrote:
> In any case, "full bridi scope" in this sense, when you are not using {naku}
> (e.g. {.i naku broda gi'e brode}) is relative to the simple statement. x1
> broda x2 == P(x1,x2); x1 broda x2 gi'e brode x3 == P(x1,x2) ^ Q(x1,x2); x1
> broda x2 gi'e na[i] brode x3 == P(x1,x2) ^ ~Q(x1,x2). "Q(x1,x2)" is the
> "full bridi" over which the {na} scopes, again pe'i ca'e ru'e.

That's fine, but it doesn't answer the quantified case. The case we
have is Ex:[P(x)^~Q(x)]

There is of course no such thing as "P(Ex)^~Q(x)" in logical notation,
with a quantifier squished into an argument place, so we can't use
logical notation to decide whether "su'o da broda gi'e na brode"
should be  "Ex:[P(x)^~Q(x)]", as seems obvious but has nothing to do
with negation having "full bridi scope", or something else.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.