From jjllambias@hotmail.com Fri Sep 27 14:12:54 2002
Return-Path: <jjllambias@hotmail.com>
X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_4); 27 Sep 2002 21:12:54 -0000
Received: (qmail 86944 invoked from network); 27 Sep 2002 21:12:54 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217)
  by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 27 Sep 2002 21:12:54 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO n12.grp.scd.yahoo.com) (66.218.66.67)
  by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 27 Sep 2002 21:12:54 -0000
Received: from [66.218.67.139] by n12.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 27 Sep 2002 21:12:52 -0000
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 21:12:52 -0000
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: On what there isn't
Message-ID: <an2hkk+tr9u@eGroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <5a.124d96ed.2ac5ef52@aol.com>
User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Length: 2388
X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster
From: "jjllambias2000" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>
X-Originating-IP: 200.49.74.2
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566
X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000


la pycyn cusku di'e

> {roda zasti} is a Lojban tautology -- and is unexpressible in 
normal formal 
> logic, where it is incorporated into the symbolism. 

Well, {zasti} has two reference places for lack of one.
{roda zasti de di} seems like a truth, but I'm not sure
I would call it a tautology. On the other hand {roda zasti
rode rodi} is almost certainly false. I would use {roda du} 
for the tautology. 

> We begin by distinguishing between nuclear and extra-nuclear 
properties and 
> relations. 

This presentation seems to have some things in common with my
proto-predicates, which would correspond to the extra-nuclear
relations.

> While the line is often fuzzy, we can point to some cases of 
> clearly extranuclear predicates, mostly old problematic ones: 
ontological 
> ones like "exists" or "is fictional," modal like "is possible," 
intensional 
> like "is thought about by Parsons," 

My proto-predicates for these would be:

x1 is the property of something that exists.
x1 is the property of something fictional.
x1 is the property of something possible.
x1 is the property of something thought about by Parsons.

>and siome new new that arise within the 
> system itself like "is complete." Most other properties are 
neclear (at 
> least until proven otherwise) and, further, every extranuclear 
property has a 
> "watered down" version which is nuclear. 

The way I see it, every normal predicate (nuclear) has its
corresponding proto-predicate (non-nuclear), but it is clear
that some non-nuclears would be called into use more often
than others.

> Interestingly, relations in this 
> theory are composed of properties, 

!

>what we would call the various ways of 
> plugging the relation, filling all the places but one with 
particulars. That 
> aRb holds is then the conjunction of the claims that a has the 
property of 
> being R to b and that b has the property of being Rd by a. 

This would go something like this with protopredicates:

ko'a broda ko'e

= ko'a kairbroda le ka ce'u du ko'e
ije 
ko'e se kairselbroda le ka ce'u du ko'a 


> Thus, though Holmes might have the proprety of being knighted 
> by Queen Victoria, Queen Victoria does not have the property of 
having 
> knighted Holmes (though her surrogate would). 

i la xolmyz cu se nolgau lo'e glico nolraitru
i ku'i no glico nolraitru cu nolgau la xolmyz

mu'o mi'e xorxes