Re: [lojban] {da} and abstractions

[Jacob Errington <nictytan@gmail.com>]

On 12 July 2012 20:13, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 7:47 PM, Jacob Errington <nictytan@gmail.com> wrote:
>> coi ro do
>>
>> I'm not sure if the CLL ever mentions it, or if there's some general
>> consensus or convention governing this, but to the prenex of which
>> bridi do logically quantified variables that have not been declared in
>> any prenex belong? (I feel like that "belong" elides a lot of
>> non-existent terminators.)
>
> I take it they are bound in the prenex of the most immediate bridi,
> but preferrably I just try to avoid implicit binding.
>

Yes, implicit binding is something that we should try to avoid in
cases like these.

>> #2 {mi prami roda gi'e se xebni noda}
>> (I think #2 is a longstanding issue with regards to logical
>> connectives and logically quantified variables.)
>
> I see no other option than for it to be:
> "ge ro da zo'u mi prami da gi no da zo'u mi se xebni da"
>

That's certainly the best interpretation (I don't really see any other
way for it to work either).

>> Additionally, logically quantified variables have a similar issue with tu'a.
>> Consider the formal definition of tu'a:
>> {tu'a ko'a} == {lo su'u ko'a co'e}.
>> Is it the case that this formal definition no longer applies when
>> using a logically quantified variable in the raised sumti slot?
>> {tu'a da} =? {lo su'u da co'e}
>
> I take "tu'a da" (when "da" has not been explicitly bound) to be
> equivalent to "tu'a su'o da", which in turn is equivalent to "lo su'u
> su'o da zo'u da co'e".
>

Yes, that's what I expected as well. It's probably the most useful
interpretation.

>> I get the impression that sumti inside LAhE don't follow the usual
>> rules, otherwise lu'i (and possibly some other LAhE) would be
>> completely pointless.
>
> "lu'i" is not very well defined anyway, especially when applied to
> quantified of logically connected terms.
>
>> The useful interpretation of {lu'i ci lo mu nanmu} is "the set
>> composed of three of the five men"
>
> But there isn't one such set, there are 10 of them. Is it any one of
> them, all of them?
>

.a'u I'd never really considered that aspect of it. I always assumed
the three men to be those that the speaker had in mind, given the
nature of {zo'e} implicitly used by {lo}. Of course, that may not be
the most useful interpretation.

mu'o mi'e la tsani

> 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.
>

-- 
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.