From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sun Sep 22 14:16:42 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 22 Sep 2002 21:16:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 86674 invoked from network); 22 Sep 2002 21:16:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 22 Sep 2002 21:16:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.186) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 22 Sep 2002 21:16:41 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 22 Sep 2002 14:16:41 -0700 Received: from 200.69.6.58 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 22 Sep 2002 21:16:41 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] tu'o usage Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 21:16:41 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Sep 2002 21:16:41.0731 (UTC) FILETIME=[58A30D30:01C2627D] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.69.6.58] X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 la pycyn cusku di'e ><< > > I don't remember it being settled and decided (by whom?) the way > > you want. For me {ro} is non-importing. > >> >Actually, on 15-03-02 you set forth (again) your system, acknowledging that >it was aberrant, The only post I can find from me on the subject that day is: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lojban/message/13795 which disagrees with your position rather than acknowkedging mine as aberrant. >and claiming for it a simplicity that it turned out not to >have when actually applied or worked out theoretically. Everyone can judge that for themselves. I have presented my reasons for preferring non-importing {ro} on the wiki. >That aside you >acknowledged the correctness -- within Lojban of the importing system. I may have acknowledged that your position is as consistent as any other choice of import assignment. The way you present it makes it look as if I had acknowledged it being better, something I do not now and did not at that time consider to be true. >Your >{ro} is just {ro ni'u}, which is rarely useful and on those occasions is >easily reached by falling back to standard Logic notation (your claim that >ordinary {ro} can be reached in the same way from {ro ni'u} is true, but >hardly an efficient suggestion. In your system maybe. In mine {ro} is plain {ro} and yours was {ro ma'u}, though the ma'u/ni'u idea never took flight. ><< >So for you {ga broda ginai broda} can be false for selected broda? >For me it's a tautology. > >> >I'm not sure that I understand this, but I suppose you mean {lo brode ga >broda ginai brode} can be false. You said that some claims and their negations could be false at the same time, so for example, {ga ro pavyseljirna cu blabi ginai ro pavyseljirna cu blabi} for me is a tautology, but for you it is not. In other words, for me {ga ginai } is always a tautology. For you, for some , it is not. >Yes, it can, if there are no brode. But, >note, {naku le brode ga broda ginai brode} is false as well, so >tautological >status is not affected -- the sentence is merely ill-formed at a low level. For me, negation of a falsehood gives a truth. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx