From ragnarok@pobox.com Fri Feb 28 20:02:44 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_4); 1 Mar 2003 04:02:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 34350 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2003 04:02:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 1 Mar 2003 04:02:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 1 Mar 2003 04:02:44 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 18oyCy-0002wG-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 20:02:44 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18oyCW-0002rN-00; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 20:02:16 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 28 Feb 2003 20:02:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.intrex.net ([209.42.192.250]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18oyC0-0002nX-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 20:01:45 -0800 Received: from craig [209.42.200.67] by smtp.intrex.net (SMTPD32-7.13) id A089134B02A8; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 23:01:13 -0500 To: Subject: [lojban] Re: Any (was: Nick will be with you shortly) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 23:01:18 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <20030301033112.GA7560@digitalkingdom.org> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal X-Declude-Sender: ragnarok@pobox.com [209.42.200.67] X-archive-position: 4255 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: ragnarok@pobox.com Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: "Craig" Reply-To: ragnarok@pobox.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >> No, it can't. Not when some of us have no training in predicate logic >> and can only follow the discussion with Lojban instead of Logji. >Since da is only defined in terms of predicate logic, those people >should either go read a book on same or bow out of the discussion. You >can't expect us to teach a course in basic predicate logic here. Well, >you can, but you'd be silly to do so. I understand the logic behind da just fine. What I don't know is the logical notation used to denote this.