From jjllambias@xxxxxxx.xxxx Tue Dec 7 11:31:01 1999
X-Digest-Num: 304
Message-ID: <44114.304.1661.959273825@eGroups.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 11:31:01 PST
From: "Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@xxxxxxx.xxxx
Subject: Re: "what i have for dinner" [resend (1)]


la and cusku di'e

> > For *whether he came*, s is the set of truth values of "he came".
> > I think.

I don't think the set of truth values enters into it directly,
because "to know a truth value" means "to know what the
truth value is", so you still have an indirect question.

I think that under this scheme, "whether he came" would be
transformed like this:

la djan djuno le du'u xukau ko'a klama

ko'a klama inajabo la djan djuno le du'u ko'a klama
ije ko'a na klama inajabo la djan djuno le du'u
ko'a na klama.
"If he came, John knows that he came, and if he
didn't come, John knows that he didn't come"

Which would correspond to "where you live influences whether
your insurance premiums are high":

le do binrydi'a cu kargu inajabo le nu do ta xabju
cu rinpau le nu le do binrydi'a cu kargu
ije le do binrydi'a na kargu inajabo le nu do ta xabju
cu rinpau le nu le do binrydi'a na kargu
"If your insurance premiums are high, your living there
influences your insurance premiums being high, and
if your insurance premiums are not high, your living
there influences your insurance premiums not being high."

I don't think you can make this one work with the set
of truth values. Of course, if "Are your insurance premiums
high?" is considered to admit more than two answers, then
those other answers should be added as well with more
conjunctions.

> > If you agree with this, my next question is how to strip the
> > repetition out of the formula.

I don't know, it doesn't seem possible.

> > I think my former rendition of "know who came" as "for every x, know
> > whether x came" (with a further step to translate "whether" into
> > logical form) was simpler than what we are proposing here, but I
> > never got it to generalize to nonepistemic examples like the
> > insurance premium ones above.

I never understood the further step to transform "whether"
into logical form. It seeemed to depend on using two different
meanings of "know", to know a fact and to know an object.

But you can transform "what there is in the fridge" to
"whether there is x in the fridge": For every/some? x, what
I have for dinner depends on whether there is x in the fridge.

For every/some x, for every/some y: Whether I have x for
dinner depends on whether there is y in the fridge.

I think it might work, but reducing "whether" to logical
form doesn't seem to me easier than "what".

co'o mi'e xorxes