* Saturday, 2011-08-13 at 19:28 -0300 - 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.
You're right.
More generally, it seems that consistency of (i)-(iii) depends on
whether or not we accept that a group whose constituents individually
broda must broda. CLL-masses do have this property, for example.
Martin
Attachment:
pgpHI8TUxGQaX.pgp
Description: PGP signature