la .trans. cu cusku di'e
I would very much like to read Loglan 2 Chapter 8 to learn more, but I have to find a copy of Loglan 2. In any case, my take away from this is that the definition of le is essentially: ∃X: P(X) and if ∃Y: P(Y) then Y=X, with the proviso C(X) & C(Y). P is the descriptive predicate and C means "is within the context of conversation". I am inclined to think that this last part is the the missing logic that could tie Russell's thinking in with JCBs.
This is more or less what I suggested, but your formula does not account for plurals (though you did use capital letters for your variables). To make it work for plurals, you need to use plural variables and replace the identity relation with the among relation in your formula.
In any case, if that is what {le} means, then how does it differ from {lo}, for which the same definition would also make sense?
mi'e la selpa'i mu'o -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.