From pycyn@aol.com Thu May 31 10:59:44 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 31 May 2001 17:59:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 63381 invoked from network); 31 May 2001 17:58:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 31 May 2001 17:58:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m09.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.164) by mta3 with SMTP; 31 May 2001 17:58:56 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.22.) id r.9d.163570b2 (17086) for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 13:58:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <9d.163570b2.2847e04a@aol.com> Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 13:58:34 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] (no subject) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_9d.163570b2.2847e04a_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_9d.163570b2.2847e04a_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 5/30/2001 9:49:43 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: > >{lo broda cu du loi broda} = {su'o lo broda cu du pisu'o loi broda}> > >isn't quite right, since Leibniz's law won't work on the right to left > >move: > >"loi broda carried the truck" does not entail "loi broda carried the truck" > >and similarly for other predicates that are more than the individual > >contributions. > > Probably you meant one of those loi's to be lo. > The second. But you should be able to replace any occurrence of {la meris} by {lo ninmu}, I think. Still, you are right that this is not about LL; that is just the traditional place to see problems with identity statements and I went there without examining the matter further. There is still something fishy about this theorem, but it is not clear to me exactly what it is -- beyond the intuition (which does not stand inspection) that an individual is no more a mass than it is a set (Quine's set theory excepted). The source seems to be that, while every broda is identical to some loi broda, not every loi broda is identical to some individual, but that is just the order of quantifier muddle again. sorry. My reading of the material on {lu'i} and {lu'o} and {lu'a} is that they simply move around among the various ways of treating the same individuals: as set, mass or distributively. That fits the examples on 134-5 and actually has some uses, unlike other possibilities, your suggestions included. I'm not sure, by the way, that {lu'i ro loi broda} is well-formed: {lu'i} doesn't take an internal quantifier (it is not itself a descriptor but a qualifier) and (loi broda} takes a fractional external. So lu'i ro lo broda = lu'i piro loi broda = lo'i broda and so on. (see my addition on descriptors). --part1_9d.163570b2.2847e04a_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 5/30/2001 9:49:43 PM Central Daylight Time,
jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:

>{lo broda cu du loi broda} = {su'o lo broda cu du pisu'o loi broda}>
>isn't quite right, since Leibniz's law won't work on the right to left
>move:
>"loi broda carried the truck" does not entail "loi broda carried the truck"
>and similarly for other predicates that are more than the individual
>contributions.

Probably you meant one of those loi's to be lo.

The second.

<But {lo broda cu du loi broda} does not mean that you can always
substitute the words {lo broda} for {loi broda} and get a
true sentence!

{lo ninmu cu du la meris} is true, but that certainly does
not mean that you can take {lo ninmu} in any true sentence
and replace it with {la meris} and expect to get a true sentence.>
But you should be able to replace any occurrence of {la meris} by {lo ninmu},
I think. Still, you are right that this is not about LL; that is just the
traditional place to see problems with identity statements and I went there
without examining the matter further. There is still something fishy about
this theorem, but it is not clear to me exactly what it is -- beyond the
intuition (which does not stand inspection) that an individual is no more a
mass than it is a set (Quine's set theory excepted). The source seems to be
that, while every broda is identical to some loi broda, not every loi broda
is identical to some individual, but that is just the order of quantifier
muddle again. sorry.

<I don't know. Is a mass of two broda, for example, not a member
of {lu'i loi broda}? Maybe it is not, I'm never quite sure how {lu'i}
et al are supposed to work. My first guess would be that
{lu'i ro loi broda} is the set of masses of broda, so it would be
a superset of {lu'i ro lo broda}, but I'm not really sure.>

My reading of the material on {lu'i} and {lu'o} and {lu'a} is that they
simply move around among the various ways of treating the same individuals:
as set, mass or distributively. That fits the examples on 134-5 and actually
has some uses, unlike other possibilities, your suggestions included. I'm
not sure, by the way, that {lu'i ro loi broda} is well-formed: {lu'i} doesn't
take an internal quantifier (it is not itself a descriptor but a qualifier)
and (loi broda} takes a fractional external. So lu'i ro lo broda = lu'i piro
loi broda = lo'i broda and so on. (see my addition on descriptors).

--part1_9d.163570b2.2847e04a_boundary--