From lojban-out@lojban.org Thu Nov 07 20:54:30 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 8 Nov 2002 04:54:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 60255 invoked from network); 8 Nov 2002 04:54:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 8 Nov 2002 04:54:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Nov 2002 04:54:29 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18A1A5-0005eR-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 07 Nov 2002 20:54:29 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18A19z-0005eA-00; Thu, 07 Nov 2002 20:54:23 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 07 Nov 2002 20:54:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com ([66.68.125.184] ident=root) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18A19u-0005e1-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 07 Nov 2002 20:54:19 -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 gA850DiR081415 for ; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 23:00:13 -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 gA8508Hk081409 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 23:00:08 -0600 (CST) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 23:00:07 -0600 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Is importing ro *really* "normal" in modern logic? (Re: importing ro) Message-ID: <20021108050007.GA81099@allusion.net> References: <1c4.13f7f2f.2afc69dc@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="+HP7ph2BbKc20aGI" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1c4.13f7f2f.2afc69dc@aol.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-archive-position: 2530 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 --+HP7ph2BbKc20aGI Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 08:14:04PM -0500, pycyn@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 11/7/2002 3:11:29 PM Central Standard Time,=20 > jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: > << > > 2 is not really needed for either position. 1 is our position, > > but pc has always spoken out against it. He does not approve > > of {ro broda cu brode =3D ro da ga na broda gi brode}, and I am > > convinced we will never reach an agreement about this. > >> > Yes, Lojban is spoken logic, supposedly. Logic has two universals which = it=20 > typically represents in surface structures very close to the two putative= =20 > equivalents. Should we not follow it in this? Or can we now toss over a= ll=20 > the other connections with Logic as well: make {a} XOR, and {anai} contra= ry=20 > to fact and so on paractically ad inf? It makes a perfectly sensible=20 > language, maybe even a more sensible one from some points of view than=20 > Lojban, but it ceases to be Lojban (or any Loglan, for that matter). So= ,=20 > where is the point of no return on this? [...] > Yes, though, it will rarely make a difference. Which makes me wonder wha= t=20 > secret agenda folks have that makes them make such a fuss about the regul= ar=20 > position. In another message: > >You are using the set (A+E-I+O-) > >for the forms {Q broda cu brode}. >=20 >Yes, the traditional set from Logic since Aristotle (with occasional >aberrations). Ok, so you say importing universals is normal in logic, but google seems to think that, though Aristotle had importing universals, that changed after Boole. All the pages I could find are interested in A-E-I+O+ (which is also the position that requires the least change to resolve the contradiction the book makes on the subject, btw). There's even a name for the fallacy of assuming that universals import, called the Existential Fallacy. Obviously, you know what you're talking about with this stuff. So, a simple question for you: Why do you say that modern logic primarily uses importing universals? Or are you not talking about modern logic... If this is the case, we *should* be using xor for {a} as you suggest (in a slippery slope fallacy I might add): that's what the greeks used for disjunction. More likely though is that there's more to the history of importing universals than this... --=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 --+HP7ph2BbKc20aGI Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE9y0TXDrrilS51AZ8RAoEsAKCv8C43tLJGmurYn965nm/onyGZjACeLcMA MDF5U27UwB1bSi+edL8eNfU= =cA2s -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --+HP7ph2BbKc20aGI--