From araizen@newmail.net Sat Sep 22 14:08:31 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: araizen@newmail.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_2); 22 Sep 2001 21:08:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 23941 invoked from network); 22 Sep 2001 21:08:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 22 Sep 2001 21:08:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailgw3.netvision.net.il) (194.90.1.11) by mta3 with SMTP; 22 Sep 2001 21:08:29 -0000 Received: from oemcomputer (ras1-p17.rvt.netvision.net.il [62.0.180.17]) by mailgw3.netvision.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA24971 for ; Sun, 23 Sep 2001 00:06:20 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <003301c143b3$448ec9e0$40b5003e@oemcomputer> To: "lojban list" References: Subject: Re: [lojban] the set of answers Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2001 00:07:30 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 From: "Adam Raizen" la .and. cusku di'e > The solution does require it if that by definition is a criterion of > what counts as a solution -- for me to understand qkau I need to feduce > it to a logical formula that contains logical elements only of standard > sorts. How is it that you understand the logical elements of standard sorts? Maybe q-kau represents an entirely *new* logical element which cannot be represented by the old logical elements. Maybe saying that you can't understand q-kau unless it is rephrased with standard logical elements is like saying that you can't understand predicate logic unless it is rephrased in propositional logic. You may not be able to understand it otherwise, but that doesn't mean you're going to be able rephrase it. mu'o mi'e .adam.