Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Sets and classes

From: "Jorge Llambias" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 02:40:24 +0000

la djorden cusku di'e

>The selcmi noda = na selcmi is done by exploiting something in
>chapter 16 (search for ``External Bridi Negation'') and then ignoring
>the fact that "na selcmi" implies something different:
>
> selcmi noda ==
> selcmi naku da ==
> naku zo'u selcmi da ==
> na selcmi da
>
>this is all find and good. But for some reason people decide to
>drop the da after the point, claiming it's the same as na selcmi.
>Though perhaps the zo'e could be "da", it is at the least misleading,
>and at the most plain wrong.

Certainly {na selcmi} does not entail {na selcmi da}, because
{zo'e} could be a particular value from context such that its
relationship is being denied, so they are clearly not equivalent.

But does not {na selcmi da} entail {na selcmi}? How could the
second one be false if the first one is true?

One could ask, does {lo selcmi be no da} belong to {lo'i selcmi}?
I don't see how it could.

{zilselcmi} should cover all sets though, including the empty one.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com