From pycyn@aol.com Tue Sep 26 17:48:01 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_0_3); 27 Sep 2000 00:48:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 2722 invoked from network); 27 Sep 2000 00:48:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 27 Sep 2000 00:48:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r12.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.66) by mta1 with SMTP; 27 Sep 2000 00:48:01 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r12.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.24.) id a.63.b99543d (2618) for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 20:47:53 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <63.b99543d.27029db9@aol.com> Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 20:47:53 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Get Much Ca$h ! 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 00-09-26 19:30:09 EDT, you write: << >roda nirna roda >roda se nirna roda >roda selnirna roda >roda roda selnirna It is not clear what is the effect of quantifying the same variable twice in the same sentence. Either the second {da} has to be taken as a new variable, saying that each thing is a nerve/neuron of each thing, or the second quantifier has to be ignored, saying that each thing is a nerve/neuron of itself. >> In standard logic, it would be the second. However, in standard logic, both of these would be prenex and so both of the {da}s would be in the scope of both quantifiers and thus of the second, to which the pair qwould then reduce. So the result would be the second version. Now, in Lojban. ...