From jjllambias@hotmail.com Mon Oct 01 20:53:20 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 2 Oct 2001 03:51:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 25439 invoked from network); 2 Oct 2001 03:51:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by 10.1.1.220 with QMQP; 2 Oct 2001 03:51:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.244) by mta2 with SMTP; 2 Oct 2001 03:53:18 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 20:53:17 -0700 Received: from 200.69.11.203 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 02 Oct 2001 03:53:17 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.69.11.203] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] Set of answers encore Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 03:53:17 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Oct 2001 03:53:17.0965 (UTC) FILETIME=[C53D33D0:01C14AF5] From: "Jorge Llambias" la pycyn cusku di'e >Suppose that {brode} and {brode} refer to exactly the ame >things in fact, "has a heart" and "has a liver," say (I'm sure la pier will >tell me this examples is hopelessly out of date and it probably is, but >suppose). The {ko'a broda} and {ko'a brode} will be true or fasle together >for every referent of {ko'a}. That means that le du'u koa broda} and {le >du'u ko'a brode} always have the same truth value, for a given referent of >{ko'a}. And so theya re equivalent and interchangeable in any context where >only the truth value matters. Well, yes, but is there any context at all where only the truth value matters? I can't think of any. >But there are contexts where the truth value >is not all that matters: {mi jinvi...} for example. There you cannot >exchange items with the same truth value and be sure to keep the truth >value >of the whole the same. But is there any case at all in which you can? >Why not? The standard answer is that in those >contexts (intensional contexts) the referent of the expression {le du'u >ko'a >broda} is no longer the basic referent, its truth value, I guess this is the basis of our disagreement. I don't think that {le du'u ko'a broda} ever has a truth value as its referent. It has a proposition (or something like that) as a referent. >but its regular >sense -- roughly the rule by which one determines its truth value in a >given >world. Clearly, looking for a heart (pump in the blood system) is >different >from looking for a liver (filter in the blood system), But heart and liver don't have the same referent. You should compare looking for one with a heart and looking for one with a liver. Which would be the same if the be-hearted are the be-livered (using the transparent sense of 'looking for'). 'Being next to one with a heart' would be the same as 'being next to one with a liver'. >so the rules are >different and thus the two expressions are no longer interchangeable. The >reason for this rule is that, without it, you get absurdities like moving >from "Jim believes that 2+2 =4," to "Jim believes that Casaubon showed the >Smargdarine Tables were a third century pseudograph" on the grounds that >they >are both true. Hopefully nobody wants to do that. >The rule slows the errors down quite a bit. It is debatable >whether this means that {du'u ko'a broda} has a different extension from >{du'u ko'a brode} or whether it means that in some cases it is not the >extension but the intension that counts (I find the latter easier to deal >with). I the former. I don't like what the intensional contexts view does in Lojban to simple predications like "I'm looking for my umbrella". mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp