Subject: Re: [lojban] cipja'o

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 19:02:18 EDT

In a message dated 4/27/2002 4:19:11 PM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] 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.)