From edward.cherlin.sy.67@aya.yale.edu Sat Mar 09 12:56:59 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: cherlin@pacbell.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 9 Mar 2002 20:56:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 84895 invoked from network); 9 Mar 2002 20:56:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m9.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 9 Mar 2002 20:56:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta5.snfc21.pbi.net) (206.13.28.241) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 9 Mar 2002 20:56:58 -0000 Received: from there ([216.102.199.245]) by mta5.snfc21.pbi.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built May 7 2001)) with SMTP id <0GSQ008BX4UYZU@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net> for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sat, 09 Mar 2002 12:56:58 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2002 12:56:57 -0800 Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: [jboske] Quantifiers, Existential Import, and all that stuff In-reply-to: <141.abdd505.29ba6c46@aol.com> To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Message-id: <0GSQ008BY4UYZU@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net> Organization: Web for Humans MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.1] Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable References: <141.abdd505.29ba6c46@aol.com> X-eGroups-From: Edward Cherlin From: Edward Cherlin Reply-To: edward@webforhumans.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=31895329 X-Yahoo-Profile: echerlin On Friday 08 March 2002 11:34, pycyn@aol.com wrote: > ...when Lojban has {ro > da} the quantification is over the universal set, which {da} > represents, not over whatever might come after it... There is no universal set in any consistent set theory, since the set=20 of subsets of a given set is larger (has strictly greater=20 cardinality) than the original set. Is there a Lojban term for=20 'class' as the term is currently used in set theory? (Crudely, a=20 collection of sets must be a class rather than a set if=20 contradictions would arise from it being a set. For precision, see=20 any of the axiom sets for successful set theories of this kind.)=20 Do we think that 'ro da' can refer to the members of a class rather=20 than a set? In that case your statement could be rescued by a=20 reference to a universal class in some appropriate theory. But the=20 phrase "*the* universal class" would still be inadmissible, unless=20 you mean to express "what-I-describe-as-the universal class". --=20 Edward Cherlin edward@webforhumans.com Does your Web site work?