Re: [lojban] xorlo and masses

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 9:47 AM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>
> My point then was that the following three assertions are inconsistent:
>
> (i) {ro lo broda cu broda} is a tautology
> (ii) {ro loi broda cu broda} is a tautology
> (iii) loi broda == lo gunma be lo broda (i.e. have the same referents)
>
> Indeed, we can derive a contradiction with broda set to {na'e gunma}:
>
> ro loi na'e gunma cu na'e gunma             (by (ii))
> ro lo gunma be lo na'e gunma cu na'e gunma  (by (iii))
> su'o gunma cu na'e gunma                    (by (i))

I tend to agree that (ii) is kind of inconsistent with (iii), but I
don't think you have a proof there. Your third step relies on "lo
gunma be lo na'e gunma" having at least one referent, but I don't
think it does, since there are no such things as non-masses in an
absolute sense. Everything is a mass of at least itself, so there are
no non-masses in the absolute. You can only conclude that "su'o gunma
be da cu na'e gunma be de", but that's no contradiction.

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.