From jjllambias@hotmail.com Fri Jun 09 07:02:38 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22406 invoked from network); 9 Jun 2000 14:02:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 9 Jun 2000 14:02:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.84) by mta2 with SMTP; 9 Jun 2000 14:02:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 4659 invoked by uid 0); 9 Jun 2000 14:02:37 -0000 Message-ID: <20000609140237.4658.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 200.49.74.2 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Fri, 09 Jun 2000 07:02:36 PDT X-Originating-IP: [200.49.74.2] To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Robin on cmene Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 07:02:36 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed From: "Jorge Llambias" la aulun cusku di'e >la lojbab. cusku di'e > > pa lu'a la mixael ce la maikyl ce la maik,l ce la micael [lu'u] > > One from the individuals making up the set {la mx, la my, la m,l, >la mc} > >Fine, but *logically* is this construction really necessary? (The >.o-logic seems to be quite similar to 'or' in natural language: one >is allowed to endlessly add or-sumti.) But .o does not mean any 'or', it means 'iff' (if and only if). I thought you were saying that all four statements were equivalent, the same statement using different names to refer to the same person. If that is not what you meant, who are those four people you named? Exclusive 'or' is .onai, but multiple .onai are not equivalent to the {pa lu'a} construction. For example (A xor B) xor C, for true A, true B, true C gives true, which is not what you want. There is no easy connective construction to get the {pa lu'a} equivalent for more than two connectands. Very unintuitive, but that's how it works. co'o mi'e xorxes ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com