From pycyn@aol.com Wed Nov 06 16:16:18 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 7 Nov 2002 00:16:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 72422 invoked from network); 7 Nov 2002 00:16:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 7 Nov 2002 00:16:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m07.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.162) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Nov 2002 00:16:17 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.13.) id r.161.16957291 (25098) for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 19:16:07 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <161.16957291.2afb0ac7@aol.com> Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 19:16:07 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: importing ro To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_161.16957291.2afb0ac7_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 8.0 for Windows US sub 230 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_161.16957291.2afb0ac7_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 11/6/2002 1:52:52 PM Central Standard Time,=20 jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: << > 1) "non-importing ro" > ro broda cu brode > =3D ro da zo'u ganai da broda gi da brode >> No, {ga ro broda cu brode gi no broda cu broda} =3D the last part. << (5) "DeMorgan" =A0 =A0 ro broda cu brode =3D naku su'o broda naku brode >> Not relevant at this point, but it would be {naku me'iro broda cu brode} --= =20 DeMorgan requires the connectives. << (3) "non-importing su'o" =A0 =A0 su'o broda cu brode =A0 =A0 =3D ganai de broda gi su'o da zo'u ge da broda gi da brode : Nobody wants (3) so we all agree to discard B and D.=20 >> Actually, non-importing {su'o}, or its analog is just about right for=20 {mei'ro},in fact could be written {me'iro broda naku brode}. Of course, fo= r=20 unrestricted quantifiers, since the domain is never empty, the=20 importing/non-importing distinction collapses.=20=20 And for restricted quantifiers, there are four cses not yet dealt with, as= =20 well as a number of other negation rules, so this is only a partial display= =20 of the possibilities. << The self-consistent possibilities are: A- (1), (4) and (5) B- (2), (3) and (5) C- (2) and (4) D- (1) and (3) >> Not drawn from a full list -- nor accurately presented as it stands. The A set work perfectly (of course) for unrestricted quantifiers ((1) just= =20 doesn't mean=20 {ro broda cu brode}, as noted). And there are other possibilities nowhere= =20 mentioned here -- importing and non-importing {no} and {mi'ero}. << The Book supports in one part or another (2), (4) and (5) which is an inconsistent position. >> It is, of course, since it is the way logic works. Though the book is a ta= d=20 confused -- as aren't we all -- about what is being imported. << If we want to keep DeMorgan, then we must choose A or B. Nobody wants (3) so we all agree to discard B and D. pc prefers C, sacrificing DeMorgan as expressed in (5). I prefer A, because I think (5) is valuable and I don't find (1) counterintuitive. >> pc prefers C in conjunction with non-importing {no} and {me'iro} and the pu= re=20 quantifier laws for quantifiers (which reduce to "DeMorgan" in the=20 unrestricted cases). If you really want 1, notice that you have it in Lojba= n=20 the same way you always have had it in Logic and Mathematics: an unrestrict= ed=20 universally quantified conditional. Why would you expect different in a=20 language that is spoken Formal Logic? --part1_161.16957291.2afb0ac7_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 11/6/2002 1:52:52 PM Central Standard Time, = jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:
<<

1) "non-importing ro"
ro broda cu brode
=3D ro da zo'u ganai da broda gi da brode

>>
No, {ga ro broda cu brode gi no broda cu broda} =3D the last part.

<<
(5) "DeMorgan"
=A0 =A0 ro broda cu brode =3D naku su'o broda naku brode
>>
Not relevant at this point, but it would be {naku me'iro broda cu brode} --= DeMorgan requires the connectives.

<<
(3) "non-importing su'o"
=A0 =A0 su'o broda cu brode
=A0 =A0 =3D ganai de broda gi su'o da zo'u ge da broda gi da brode
:
Nobody wants (3) so we all agree to discard B and D.
>>
Actually, non-importing {su'o}, or its analog is just about right for {mei'= ro},in fact could be written {me'iro broda naku brode}. Of course, fo= r unrestricted quantifiers, since the domain is never empty, the importing/= non-importing distinction collapses.
And for restricted quantifiers, there are four cses not yet dealt with, as = well as a number of other negation rules, so this is only a partial display= of the possibilities.

<<
The self-consistent possibilities are:

A- (1), (4) and (5)
B- (2), (3) and (5)
C- (2) and (4)
D- (1) and (3)
>>
Not drawn from a full list -- nor accurately presented as it stands.
The A set work perfectly (of course) for unrestricted quantifiers ((1) just= doesn't mean
{ro broda cu brode}, as noted). And there are other possibilities now= here mentioned here -- importing and non-importing {no} and {mi'ero}.

<<
The Book supports in one part or another (2), (4) and (5)
which is an inconsistent position.
>>
It is, of course, since it is the way logic works. Though the book is= a tad confused -- as aren't we all -- about what is being imported.

<<
If we want to keep DeMorgan, then we must choose A or B. Nobody
wants (3) so we all agree to discard B and D. pc prefers C,
sacrificing DeMorgan as expressed in (5). I prefer A, because
I think (5) is valuable and I don't find (1) counterintuitive.
>>
pc prefers C in conjunction with non-importing {no} and {me'iro} and the pu= re quantifier laws for quantifiers (which reduce to "DeMorgan" in the unres= tricted cases). If you really want 1, notice that you have it in Lojban the= same way you always have had it in Logic and Mathematics: an unrestricted = universally quantified conditional. Why would you expect different in= a language that is spoken Formal Logic?

--part1_161.16957291.2afb0ac7_boundary--