Subject: Re: [lojban] Mass/Set

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 15:00:06 -0500

Jorge Llambias wrote:

> >If I'm right in the above, then the claim that one may rigorously
> >transform either of 6.1 and 6.2 into the other entails that different
> >sets of zarci can be meant in 6.2 too. If that is the case, then I'd
> >have thought that this would extend to {le prenu cu klama le zarci} and
> >indeed also to {le nanmu cu bevri le bloti}.
> 
> I agree with your reasoning. I think that the book exaggerates
> a little when it says that one can be _rigorously_ transformed
> into the other. It can be only when it is understood in 6.1 that
> {le zarci} refers both times to the same object, which I think
> is what was being (unexplicitly) assumed.

Yes. 6.1 can be transformed into something that looks just like 6.2
without change of meaning, even though some other instance of 6.2 may
mean something different. Here's an analogy:

x.1)	John is a bachelor.

x.2)	John is an unmarried man.

Because "bachelor" means "unmarried man", we can rigorously transform Example x.1
into Example x.2 or vice versa. Nevertheless, x.1 and x.2 might have different
truth values if a different John is referred to in each.

-- 

Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis um dies! || John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau, || http://www.reutershealth.com
Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau, || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Und trank die Milch vom Paradies. -- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)