From lojban-out@lojban.org Fri Nov 08 04:22:25 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 12:22:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 31452 invoked from network); 8 Nov 2002 12:22:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 8 Nov 2002 12:22:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Nov 2002 12:22:25 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18A89Z-00017L-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Fri, 08 Nov 2002 04:22:25 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18A89U-000172-00; Fri, 08 Nov 2002 04:22:20 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 08 Nov 2002 04:22:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from mxout3.netvision.net.il ([194.90.9.24]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18A89P-00016m-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 08 Nov 2002 04:22:15 -0800 Received: from default ([62.0.145.174]) by mxout3.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 0.8 (built Jul 12 2002)) with SMTP id <0H59009BDBO6HN@mxout3.netvision.net.il> for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 08 Nov 2002 14:21:43 +0200 (IST) Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 14:22:12 +0200 Subject: [lojban] Re: Is importing ro *really* "normal" in modern logic? (Re: importing ro) To: "lojban-list@lojban.org" Message-id: <0H59009BEBO6HN@mxout3.netvision.net.il> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Foxmail 4.1 [eg] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-archive-position: 2536 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: araizen@cs.huji.ac.il Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: Adam Raizen From: Adam Raizen Reply-To: araizen@cs.huji.ac.il X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out de'i li 2002-11-07 ti'u li 23:00:00 la'o zoi. Jordan DeLong .zoi cusku di'e >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, >> jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: [li'o] >In another message: >> >You are using the set (A+E-I+O-) >> >for the forms {Q broda cu brode}. >> >>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. The *best* evidence that in modern logic universal quantification does not have existential import comes from pc's own website (http://users.aol.com/pycyn/quantify.html): pc> Lojban, following the modernest of logics, fell in with this pc> scheme. Although it has several ways of saying ?All S is P,? they pc> are all equivalent and all ultimately the first: pc> pc> roda zo?u ganai da S gi da P pc> pc> roda poi S cu P pc> pc> ro lo S cu P pc> pc> ro S cu P I guess opinions do change, even logicians' opinions. mu'o mi'e .adam.