From lojban-out@lojban.org Wed Nov 06 07:44:18 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 6 Nov 2002 15:44:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 48789 invoked from network); 6 Nov 2002 15:44:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 6 Nov 2002 15:44:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 6 Nov 2002 15:44:18 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 189SLq-00061q-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 06 Nov 2002 07:44:18 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 189SLi-00061Z-00; Wed, 06 Nov 2002 07:44:10 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 06 Nov 2002 07:44:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com ([66.68.125.184] ident=root) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 189SLe-00061Q-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 06 Nov 2002 07:44:06 -0800 Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (asdf@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id gA6FnqiR060798 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 09:49:52 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from fracture@cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com) Received: (from fracture@localhost) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id gA6Fnq28060797 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 09:49:52 -0600 (CST) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 09:49:52 -0600 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: importing ro Message-ID: <20021106154952.GA60620@allusion.net> References: <3DC92B49.9060908@newmail.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="DocE+STaALJfprDB" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3DC92B49.9060908@newmail.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-archive-position: 2454 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: fracture@allusion.net Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: Jordan DeLong From: Jordan DeLong Reply-To: fracture@allusion.net X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out --DocE+STaALJfprDB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 04:46:33PM +0200, Adam Raizen wrote: > la .and. cusku di'e > >The book is quite clear that ro as a quantifier is importing (16.8, > >as pc has just pointed out on Jboske). Like you, my preference > >would have been for nonimporting ro, but I can't see any grounds > >for overriding the book -- it's not inconsistent or 'broken' on > >this point.=20 >=20 > It sure is inconsistent on this point. According to the book, 'ro=20 > pavyseljirna xirma cu blabi' is false, since 'ro pavyseljirna' has=20 > existential import, and thus 'naku ro pavyseljirna xirma cu blabi' is=20 > true, since it is the negation of a false statement. According to ch. 16= =20 > sec. 11, this is exactly equivalent to 'su'o pavyseljirna xirma naku=20 > blabi', which is false, since once again it claims existence of=20 > unicorns, and so either the book allows contradictions, and should be=20 > called 'the complete zenban language', or we can disregard that=20 > silliness about 'ro' having existential import, and use 'ro' as is=20 > standard in mathematics at least (whether or not that is the standard=20 > use in logic, as pc seems very certain that it is not). "naku ro pavyseljirna cu blabi" is not a true statement, because it makes more claims than you are giving it credit for, and you only contradicted one of them. In fact, it's not even a true statement with a nonimporting universal quantifier, if we keep our negation boundary rules unchanged (more on this below). The reason is that you're constructing your original statement wrong. To work with an importing ro you have to do it by using a nonrestricted variable when you don't want to claim something exists; like this: ro da zo'u ganai da pavyseljirna gi da blabi Ax(Ux -> Wx) Which is true even in a universe of discourse where there are no unicorns. Though, it is false in the empty universe (not that we care much about that). It should be noted, btw, that: no pavyseljirna cu blabi is a false statement because no imports also, since it can be moved around. Actually the more I think about this the more I like importing universals for lojban. Take a look at the generalization of what you were talking about: naku ro da poi gerku cu broda Now; imagine that ro *doesn't* import. The above sentence, then, can't have the negation boundary moved: su'o da poi gerku naku broda which claims there is at least one gerku. So what's really going on is what AndR says here, I think: It is "da" that imports, not ro. Which is both consistent with book and makes sense (and i'm even starting to like it better than nonimporting foo). --=20 Jordan DeLong - fracture@allusion.net lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u sei la mark. tuen. cusku --DocE+STaALJfprDB Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE9yTofDrrilS51AZ8RAoeUAKCO0Q75H6snS+s3DGk0WXhhOaQp0ACfYIpH 3GR5IC/1NWh0ShOUD7Trw1o= =Odk9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --DocE+STaALJfprDB--