From pycyn@aol.com Wed Sep 18 04:43:02 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 18 Sep 2002 11:43:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 27306 invoked from network); 18 Sep 2002 11:43:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 18 Sep 2002 11:43:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r07.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.103) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 18 Sep 2002 11:43:01 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.10.) id r.187.e5386a3 (4320) for ; Wed, 18 Sep 2002 07:42:58 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <187.e5386a3.2ab9c0c2@aol.com> Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 07:42:58 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: I like chocolate To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_187.e5386a3.2ab9c0c2_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10509 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_187.e5386a3.2ab9c0c2_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/17/2002 10:26:48 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: << > Then this is where we part. To me {da zo'u broda tu'a da} makes > a different klaim than {broda tu'a da}, where the quantification > of {da} is within the {tu'a} abstraction. I don't know how > you can defend the {tu'a} expressions for intensional contexts > if you don't think so. >> Yes, different; but the first implies the second. And, under the present system at least, the instant case, where {tu'a da} is a cover for {tu'o du'u ce'u co'e da}, it's going to get the implication the other way as well. << >Quantifying in -- moving a quantifier from outside an intensional context >to >inside -- is rarely a problem, though some information information may be >lost. If some information is lost then you can't do it and keep the same meaning. I said nothing about one way entailment. You have to be able to move in and out for them to be equivalent. >> I didn't say they had the same meaning, only that they will be true -- in the instant case -- in exactly the same situations, material equivalence. << But the RHS is not fully defined by that expression. I think you can't express what {ko'a kairbroda ko'e} means in terms of {broda}. At least I don't see an easy way to do it. >> tu'o du'u ce'u kairbroda tu'o du'u ce'u brode kei du tu'o ce'u broda da poi ckaji tu'o du'u ce'u brode << ko'a broda lo'e brode = ko'a kairbroda tu'o du'u ce'u brode And {kairbroda} is an ordinary jvajvo from {ckaji broda}, with place structure b1 (b2=c1) c2 b3 b4 b5 ... >> An ordinary jvajvo with an extraordinary semantics: (b2=c1) is dropped (not unusual) but plays an active role -- and is quantified to boot. << Yes, as I said, the official {sisku} would correspond to {kairsisku} if {sisku} was defined as I favour, so that I can say {mi sisku le mi santa} for "I am looking for my umbrella". With that definition {mi sisku lo'e santa} is {mi kairsisku tu'o du'u ce'u santa}, which is exactly how the official definition (my {kairsisku} here) is supposed to be used, to say "I'm looking for an umbrella" without claiming that there is an umbrella being sought by me. >> I don't see why you would want the {sisku} back; it almost always gives the srong results, making it seem like there is a particular ... I am looking for, when any would do: exactly your problem which led to your supposedly improved {lo'e}. Some minor proofs, using real lambdas this time -- the {ce'u}s are a pain.. kairbroda is \x \z(Ey(x broda y & y ckaji z) Ew a kairbroda tu'o du'u ce'u du w = (eventually) Ew ( Ey(a broda y and y = w)) = (eventually again) Ey(a broda y & Ew y = w) = (ditto) a kairbroda tu'o du'u da zo'u ce'u du da. a broda loe' brode = a kairbroda tu'o du'u ce'u brode = Ey( a broda y & y brode) = da poi brode zo'u a broda y = a broda lo brode. It is hard to get an unmediated relation between an object and a property ({ckaji} excepted) and, when there is mediation, the property tends to reduce back to its appliction to the mediator. Plato fell for the hope of burying the mediator, soe of his successors deliberately used the trick to fool the unwary (Hermetics at least, if not Gnostics). --part1_187.e5386a3.2ab9c0c2_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/17/2002 10:26:48 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:

<<
Then this is where we part. To me {da zo'u broda tu'a da} makes
a different klaim than {broda tu'a da}, where the quantification
of {da} is within the {tu'a} abstraction. I don't know how
you can defend the {tu'a} expressions for intensional contexts
if you don't think so.

>>
Yes, different; but the first implies the second.  And, under the present system at least, the instant case, where {tu'a da}  is a cover for {tu'o du'u ce'u co'e da}, it's going to get the implication the other way as well.

<<
>Quantifying in -- moving a quantifier from outside an intensional context
>to
>inside -- is rarely a problem, though some information information may be
>lost.

If some information is lost then you can't do it and keep the
same meaning. I said nothing about one way entailment. You have
to be able to move in and out for them to be equivalent.
>>
I didn't say they had the same meaning, only that they will be true -- in the instant case -- in exactly the same situations, material equivalence.


<<
But the RHS is not fully defined by that expression. I think you
can't express what {ko'a kairbroda ko'e} means in terms of {broda}.
At least I don't see an easy way to do it.
>>
tu'o du'u ce'u kairbroda tu'o du'u ce'u brode kei du tu'o ce'u broda da poi ckaji tu'o du'u ce'u brode

<<


   ko'a broda lo'e brode = ko'a kairbroda tu'o du'u ce'u brode

And {kairbroda} is an ordinary jvajvo from {ckaji broda}, with
place structure b1 (b2=c1) c2 b3 b4 b5 ...
>>
An ordinary jvajvo with an extraordinary semantics: (b2=c1) is dropped (not unusual) but plays an active role -- and is quantified to boot.

<<
Yes, as I said, the official {sisku} would correspond to {kairsisku}
if {sisku} was defined as I favour, so that I can say {mi sisku
le mi santa} for "I am looking for my umbrella". With that definition
{mi sisku lo'e santa} is {mi kairsisku tu'o du'u ce'u santa}, which
is exactly how the official definition (my {kairsisku} here) is
supposed to be used, to say "I'm looking for an umbrella" without
claiming that there is an umbrella being sought by me.
>>
I don't see why you would want the {sisku} back; it almost always gives the srong results, making it seem like there is a  particular ... I am looking for, when any would do: exactly your problem which led to your supposedly improved {lo'e}.

Some minor proofs, using real lambdas this time -- the {ce'u}s are a pain..
kairbroda is \x \z(Ey(x broda y & y ckaji z)
Ew a kairbroda tu'o du'u ce'u du w = (eventually) Ew ( Ey(a broda y and y = w)) =
(eventually again) Ey(a broda y & Ew y = w) = (ditto) a kairbroda tu'o du'u da zo'u ce'u du da. 
a broda loe' brode = a kairbroda tu'o du'u ce'u brode = Ey( a broda y & y brode) = da poi brode zo'u a broda y = a broda lo brode.

It is hard to get an unmediated relation between an object and a property ({ckaji} excepted) and, when there is mediation, the property tends to reduce back to its appliction to the mediator.  Plato fell for the hope of burying the mediator, soe of his successors deliberately used the trick to fool the unwary (Hermetics at least, if not Gnostics).




 --part1_187.e5386a3.2ab9c0c2_boundary--