From jjllambias@hotmail.com Mon Sep 23 19:57:10 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 24 Sep 2002 02:57:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 39324 invoked from network); 24 Sep 2002 02:57:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 24 Sep 2002 02:57:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.179) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 24 Sep 2002 02:57:09 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 23 Sep 2002 19:57:09 -0700 Received: from 200.69.6.43 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 24 Sep 2002 02:57:09 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] tu'o usage Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 02:57:09 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Sep 2002 02:57:09.0646 (UTC) FILETIME=[130942E0:01C26376] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.69.6.43] X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 la pycyn cusku di'e > > In my system, ro = no naku = naku su'o naku = naku me'iro. > > Some of those don't work with other systems. That's what makes them > > complicated > >> >What won't work? Some of the negation relationships. Unless the simple forms are assigned to (A-E-I+O+) (or (A+E+I-O-) but this one would be silly) then some of those relationships don't work between the simple forms. >And, by the way, which of the half dozen systems I have >suggested and played with (including what I take is now yours) is being >labelled "pc's system?" I didn't label any system as yours. I understand you argued at some point for (A+E+I+O+) and at other times for (A+E-I+O-) for the simple forms. A+/A- is the one we always disagree about, since I want {ro broda cu brode} to be A- and you want it to be A+. >I take the fact that we don't usually deal with empty sets as a reason to >say >that inporting {ro} is basic: it is the one we usually need. That doesn't make sense. When we don't deal with empty sets the question of import does not even arise. Either importing or non-importing work just as well. In those cases we don't need to choose one over the other. << > >(the apparent exception being an aberration that ran briefly form > >about > >1858 to 1958). > >Are those the dates of some particular events? > >> >Boole's Laws of Thought to my first paper on the subject (class, not >published). Nobody can accuse you of being too modest! :) Is your epoch making paper available online? >Boole gave a (not quite the first modern) expression to the >non-importing reading of "All S is P" (but, of course, using the external >importing "all" and something equivalent to conditionalization of the >subject-in-the-predicate). I'm glad Boole is on my side then. ><< >"Inner quantifiers" are not quantifiers. They make a claim or >a presupposition about the _cardinality_ of the underlying set, >they do not quantify over it. (In the case of non-importing {ro} >no claim is made nor presupposed about the cardinality, so the >question does not even come up.) > >> >Well, I don't quite see how this use of PA is radically different from the >use in OUTER, except about the identity of the set involved, but that >doesn't >matter in the present discussion, whose point was just that the passage of >a >negation boundary over a description did not change the inner quantifiers >(or >whatever) and so they have a different status from the outer one. I said that changing inner {ro} to {me'iro} was nonsense, not that the passage of a negation boundary did not affect the inner quantifier. If the inner quantifier is {ro}, then nothing is changed, because {ro} as inner quantifier in fact adds nothing, neither claim nor presupposition: {lo'i broda} always has ro members by definition. When the inner quantifier is something other than {ro}, then there is an additional claim or presuposition that {lo'i broda} has Q members. If it is a claim, then passing through {na} will affect that claim, but not by changing the inner quantifier into another inner quantifier. For example (asuming for the moment that the inner is claimed rather than presupposed): naku lo pa broda cu brode = naku ge lo broda cu brode gi pa da broda = ganai lo broda cu brode ginai pa da broda = ga ro lo broda naku brode ginai pa da broda And this cannot be written as {ro lo Q broda naku brode}. So if the inner quantifier is claimed, the manipulation rules are not at all simple, except when the inner is non-importing ro, which makes no claim or presupposition. Yet another argument in favour of non-importing ro. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com