From jjllambias@hotmail.com Fri Aug 10 09:56:17 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 10 Aug 2001 16:56:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 42105 invoked from network); 10 Aug 2001 16:54:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 10 Aug 2001 16:54:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.146) by mta1 with SMTP; 10 Aug 2001 16:54:57 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 10 Aug 2001 09:54:57 -0700 Received: from 200.49.74.2 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 10 Aug 2001 16:54:57 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.49.74.2] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] A or B, depending on C, and related issues Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 16:54:57 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Aug 2001 16:54:57.0653 (UTC) FILETIME=[2FBCEA50:01C121BD] From: "Jorge Llambias" la pycyn cusku di'e >Yup! One problem with working at a dash when you have lousy handwriting >(never mind P anQ, it's T and F that are the problems). I use 1 and 0, but I could also use V and F which are distinct enough. >I would have taken the reduction as evidence that this was a totally >inappropriate rendition of "Q or R depending on P" since it says that Q or >R >regardless of P (or anything else). Well, they have the same truth table, that doesn't mean it's a good rendition. I think it means that "Q or R depending on P" is not well represented by a three way logical connective. (Neither is the causal "regardless", of course.) >But then, I don't understand what all of >this has to do with indirect questions exactly -- or with whatever keeps >being called indirect questions while being neither (unless "indirect" >means >"vague"). It has to do in that forms like "Whether A happens depends on whether B happens", or "what x does depends on what y does", etc, involve these so called "indirect question" forms. >I suppose "{xn} depends on {ym}" means something like "there is a set of >true >conditionals (not necessarily truth-functional, if that bothers people) >whose >antecedents are each a member of {ym} and whose consequents are members of >{xn}" and then some details about completeness and exclusiveness -- which >might vary from case to case, as might the details of how the conditionals >run. The vaguer terms ("what's for dinner," "what's in the icebox," "what >the weather is") just cover these lack of details, while guaranteeing the >gneral (though possibly vacuous) claim. "depending" is vacuous as a logical connective, not as a predicate. As a predicate it probably involves all these internal conditionals you make allusion to. For example, I can say: le nu mi dasni makau cu jalge le nu mi klama makau What I wear depends on (results from) where I go. I'm not saying a lot there, but I am saying something. >The only connection I can see between all this and questions is the >possibility that >expressions like "what's in the icebox" stands for a set of answers (claims >in this case, not propositions). To my understanding so far, it stands for The Right Answer rather than for a set, but I certainly don't have a full theory, or anything even close to that. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp