From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Thu Jan 23 05:33:10 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 23 Jan 2003 13:33:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 35238 invoked from network); 23 Jan 2003 13:33:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 23 Jan 2003 13:33:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lmsmtp01.st1.spray.net) (212.78.202.111) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 23 Jan 2003 13:33:09 -0000 Received: from oemcomputer (host213-121-70-212.surfport24.v21.co.uk [213.121.70.212]) by lmsmtp01.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 966531E789 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 14:33:07 +0100 (MET) To: "Lojban@Yahoogroups. Com" Subject: RE: [lojban] za'e "postnex" Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 13:33:08 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030123000111.0344ec20@pop.east.cox.net> From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=122260811 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin Lojbab: > At 03:41 AM 1/23/03 +0000, And Rosta wrote: > >Martin Bays: > > > Is there a nice way to quantify over variables "in afterthought"? > > > > > > It's the kind of thing you see in (informal) mathematics all the time - > > > it's often natural to assume your variables are arbitrary when you write > > > the main formula, and only afterwards think to put in the "for all x". So > > > you might have, say "n[sub]i > 0 (all i in N)" > > > > > > So is there an elegant way to translate this kind of thing into lojban? > > > >Not in Standard Lojban > > You just need to be creative > > [text] .i ro ibu zo'u go'i/la'edi'u > or > [text with no .i on the end] vau to ro ibu zo'u Both are elegant but in different ways (which could be discussed on Jboske) they both require glorking to get from what they actually say to the intended meaning, whereas ordinary prenexes don't. That doesn't mean that Martin wouldn't be satisfied with your suggestions, but it does mean that it would be misleading to describe your suggestions as afterthought quantification, if that implies some kind of strong parallel with forethought quantification. --And.