From pycyn@aol.com Sat Apr 27 16:02:22 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 27 Apr 2002 23:02:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 58919 invoked from network); 27 Apr 2002 23:02:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m12.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 27 Apr 2002 23:02:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r06.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.102) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 27 Apr 2002 23:02:21 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id r.7a.25fe6b33 (4406) for ; Sat, 27 Apr 2002 19:02:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <7a.25fe6b33.29fc87fa@aol.com> Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 19:02:18 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] cipja'o To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_7a.25fe6b33.29fc87fa_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 118 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_7a.25fe6b33.29fc87fa_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/27/2002 4:19:11 PM Central Daylight Time, araizen@newmail.net writes: > I don't think than 'result' has much to do with proofs and conclusions > (despite > the word 'ja'o'). Maybe 'nibli porsi' (nibypoi) > Yes, that's probably better. It's amazing how little logical terminology is easily available in "the logical language." I think we have gone round on this before, but I can't find the previous "decision" for "proof." Well postulates seem to me to be different from the kind of ad hoc suppositions that play a role in proofs, though I'm not sure I could explain what the difference was. In any case, I think that there are at least a couple of other cases in the corpus where {da'i} and {da'inai} were used to bracket various kinds of indirect proofs within greater proofs (maybe both negative proofs in the cases that I can think of), so usage seems to be on toward established, since I can't think of a case with {ru'a}. (Postulations seem to be more a part of explanation that of proof and thus to rely on something that comes before rather than what comes later, but that is all very rough.) --part1_7a.25fe6b33.29fc87fa_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/27/2002 4:19:11 PM Central Daylight Time, araizen@newmail.net writes:


I don't think than 'result' has much to do with proofs and conclusions (despite
the word 'ja'o'). Maybe 'nibli porsi' (nibypoi)

Yes, that's probably better.  It's amazing how little logical terminology is easily available in "the logical language."  I think we have gone round on this before, but I can't find the previous "decision" for "proof."

<I think that 'ru'a' is supposed to be used for hypotheses, maybe in conjunction
with 'da'i.>

Well postulates seem to me to be different from the kind of ad hoc suppositions that play a role in proofs, though I'm not sure I could explain what the difference was.  In any case, I think that there are at least a couple of other cases in the corpus where {da'i} and {da'inai} were used to bracket various kinds of indirect proofs within greater proofs (maybe both negative proofs in the cases that I can think of), so usage seems to be on toward established, since I can't think of a case with {ru'a}.  (Postulations seem to be more a part of explanation that of proof and thus to rely on something that comes before rather than what comes later, but that is all very rough.)


 --part1_7a.25fe6b33.29fc87fa_boundary--