From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sun Aug 12 14:10:00 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 12 Aug 2001 21:09:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 91983 invoked from network); 12 Aug 2001 21:09:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 12 Aug 2001 21:09:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.122) by mta1 with SMTP; 12 Aug 2001 21:09:59 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 12 Aug 2001 14:09:59 -0700 Received: from 200.41.247.38 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 12 Aug 2001 21:09:59 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.41.247.38] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] negating connectives Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 21:09:59 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Aug 2001 21:09:59.0372 (UTC) FILETIME=[251970C0:01C12373] From: "Jorge Llambias" la and cusku di'e >As per standard logic, negating a connective reverses its truth table. E.g. > > E na E > T T : T F > T F : F T > F T : F T > F F : F T If by "na E" you mean {na ge ... gi ...}, then you're right. If you mean {na.e}, {naje}, {nagi'e}, then only the first connectand is negated. >My question is, firstly: >How do we negate a connective so as to mean "this connective yields a >false/wrong truth table, but its truth-reversal does not necessarily yield >a >true/correct truth table"? Unless you mean something Zen-like, that shouldn't be possible. >For example, if I know that p iff q, I would like to be able to somehow say >that I know that it is false/wrong that p and q. I think you mean "for all p and for all q, p iff q" and "not (for all p and for all q, p and q)". Those two are perfectly compatible. >And secondly: >In asking the first question, am I falling victim to the fallacy of >construing connectives as possible-worlds operators, so that the answer >to my question needs to be sought amid the logic of possible-world >operators rather than the logic of connectives? Something like that. More like the fallacy of taking p and q to run over a set (be it possible worlds or different values in the actual world) and then forgetting to take that implicit quantifier into account and treat them as single terms. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp