* Saturday, 2014-09-27 at 12:40 -0700 - TR NS <transfire@gmail.com>:
> On Saturday, September 27, 2014 3:30:26 PM UTC-4, Martin Bays wrote:
> > * Saturday, 2014-09-27 at 12:25 -0700 - TR NS <tran...@gmail.com
> > > On Saturday, September 27, 2014 12:31:55 PM UTC-4, Martin Bays wrote:
> > > Very cool!
> > >
> > > Could you explain some of the notation, e.g.
> > >
> > > non-veridical: FA x1. (gerku(f0(x1)) /\ srana(f0(x1),x1))
> > > EX x1. viska(f0(x1),mi)
> >
> > Yeah, there's quite a bit to the notation. But it outputs a lojban
> > version too, so you should be able to work out things mean by comparing
> > the logic with the lojban.
> >
> > To explain what's in your example:
> > FA is for all
> > EX is there exists
> > /\ is and
> > f0 is a function (glorked from context).
> >
> Thanks. That helps. Only the last one doesn't make sense to me. Is it
> something to do with `le`?
Yes. Here's a simpler example:
ro da poi verba cu prami lo mamta be da
FA x1:(verba(_)). mamta(f0(x1),x1)
FA x1:(verba(_)). prami(x1,f0(x1))
ro da poi ke'a verba ku'o zo'u li ma'o fyno mo'e da lo'o mamta da
.i ro da poi ke'a verba ku'o zo'u da prami li ma'o fyno mo'e da lo'o
Here, we interpret {lo mamta be da} as a function from children to their
mothers; the first proposition expresses this, and the second is then
the main statement.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature