From pycyn@aol.com Sat Oct 06 14:19:10 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 6 Oct 2001 21:16:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 49164 invoked from network); 6 Oct 2001 21:16:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by 10.1.1.221 with QMQP; 6 Oct 2001 21:16:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r04.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.100) by mta3 with SMTP; 6 Oct 2001 21:19:06 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.7.) id r.60.14db494d (17381) for ; Sat, 6 Oct 2001 17:19:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <60.14db494d.28f0cf44@aol.com> Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 17:19:00 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Set of answers encore To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_60.14db494d.28f0cf44_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_60.14db494d.28f0cf44_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/5/2001 7:42:30 PM Central Daylight Time, a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes: > > I'd go so far as to say I think it is just flat hopelessly wrong. As > > noted, under really minimal real-world conditions it is always true. > > I still feel that there has to be a solution -- there has to be a way > to talk about beliefs extensionally, because often we have no access > to others' intensional beliefs and wish to make claims only about > extensional beliefs. > As I should have remembered when the whole issue came up, there is no solution. That is why there is intensional logic in the first place -- we want to muck about in there but we can't do it extensionally. It turns out that insofar as this works at all (not very far, alas, as I have played with it) it works because of a small but significant intensional spot in the midst of the definition of "answer." so, far from being primitive, "answer" (and so "question) are in need of further analysis at this point. But, happily, can be used for the question part without creating any problems within that range. (The fact that they work for {djuno} and {krici} and the like should be a warning about this intensional component). --part1_60.14db494d.28f0cf44_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/5/2001 7:42:30 PM Central Daylight Time, a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes:


> I'd go so far as to say I think it is just flat hopelessly wrong. As
> noted, under really minimal real-world conditions it is always true.

I still feel that there has to be a solution -- there has to be a way
to talk about beliefs extensionally, because often we have no access
to others' intensional beliefs and wish to make claims only about
extensional beliefs.



As I should have remembered when the whole issue came up, there is no solution.  That is why there is intensional logic in the first place -- we want to muck about in there but we can't do it extensionally.  

<Taking questions as a primitive notion is progress of a sort. I'll
leave discussion of that to another message.>

It turns out that insofar as this works at all (not very far, alas, as I have played with it) it works because of a small but significant intensional spot in the midst of the definition of "answer."  so, far from being primitive, "answer" (and so "question) are in need of further analysis at this point.  But, happily, can be used for the question part without creating any problems within that range.  (The fact that they work for {djuno} and {krici} and the like should be a warning about this intensional component).
--part1_60.14db494d.28f0cf44_boundary--