* Tuesday, 2014-05-27 at 19:21 -0700 - guskant <gusni...@gmail.com>:
> Regarding {zo'e} as the outmost constant in a prenex of a statement is a
> special case of {zo'e} as Skolem functions. As for the example
>
> {ro da broda lo brode},
> that is
> Ax B(x,f(x)),
>
> it says nothing about whether {lo brode} as a Skolem function f(x) is
> constant for all x or not. That is to say, xorlo allows both
> interpretations "EYAx B(x,Y)" and "AxEY B(x,Y)" as a statement before
> Skolemization, while CLL-lo restricts the interpretation to "AxEy B(x,y)"
> (small y is a singular variable).
Assuming I understand you correctly as wanting {lo broda se broda ro da}
to have only the "EYAx" interpretation, this is in direct conflict with
the gadri BPFK section, which says
"Any term without an explicit outer quantifier is a constant, i.e. not
a quantified term. This means that it refers to one or more individuals,
and changing the order in which the constant term appears with respect
to a negation or with respect to a quantified term will not change the
meaning of the sentence.".
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Martin Bays <mb...@sdf.org> wrote:The statement "there exists a function f(x) such that for all x,
P(x,f(x))" is logically equivalent to "for all x, there exists y such
that P(x,y)".There is, however, a difference between these two metalinguistic statements:"There exists a function f(x) such that the speaker of the sentence is claiming that for all x, P(x, f(x))" and "the speaker of the sentence is claiming that there exists a function f(x) such that for all x, P(x, f(x)".CLL-lo uses the second interpretation when interpreting such sentences.