From pycyn@aol.com Sun Jun 18 18:22:13 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26768 invoked from network); 19 Jun 2000 01:21:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 19 Jun 2000 01:21:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r18.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.72) by mta1 with SMTP; 19 Jun 2000 01:21:39 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r18.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.10.) id a.cc.6126b70 (6621) for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 21:21:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 21:21:25 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Trivalent logic [was: Re: the logical language] To: lojban@egroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 41 From: pycyn@aol.com In a message dated 00-06-18 19:16:32 EDT, xorxes writes: << in a trivalent logic the unary operations already have lots of interesting things (necessary, probable, possible, impossible, etc, are some of the things that Aymara handles this way).>> It is not clear just how necessity, probability, etc. would be handled as trivalent connectives in any useful way. They tend to be about the range of assignements, rather than expressible in a single assignment. And hence also to be capable of being treated in any-valent logics. I can imagine trivalent readings that would resemble these properties, though they would not actually be them. I can even more easily imagine a natural bivalent language which had these notion incorporated in some clever way into verb structure. Is there any evidence of 3^9 binary connectives in Aymara -- or an easy way to create them? Of half a dozen distinct negations even?