Subject: [lojban] argh; I suck (was Re: importing ro)

From: Jordan DeLong <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 21:12:38 -0600

On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 08:48:43PM -0600, Jordan DeLong wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 08:41:43PM -0600, Jordan DeLong wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 01:59:04AM -0000, And Rosta wrote:
> [...]
> > Furthermore, it is false that
> > Ax(Ux -> Wx) |- Ex(Ux & !Wx)
> 
> I meant to type:
> ~Ax(Ux -> Wx) |- Ex(Ux & ~Wx)

Bah.

Ok so this is actually true. I realize what was confusing me now:
it was about the effects of adding a negation.

So you guys are right: the book contradicts itself and the choice
appears to be between nonimporting universals with the naku boundary
rules, or different naku boundary rules (dunno what they'd be) and
importing universal.

I would prefer the former, since the import of universals has only
a paragraph or so in the book, and the naku stuff is more well
explained. More usage probably depends on the naku stuff than on
import (if *any* even depends on import...).

Btw, sorry for sending a bunch of emails instead of thinking this
out first.

-- 
Jordan DeLong - [email-masked]
lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u
sei la mark. tuen. cusku