From a.rosta@ntlworld.com Mon Aug 13 18:15:34 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@ntlworld.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 14 Aug 2001 01:15:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 36485 invoked from network); 14 Aug 2001 01:15:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 14 Aug 2001 01:15:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta05-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.45) by mta3 with SMTP; 14 Aug 2001 01:15:32 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.255.40.56]) by mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010814011531.MSIB20588.mta05-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 02:15:31 +0100 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] negating connectives Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 02:13:49 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 In-Reply-To: <105.7a6cb25.28a83b7e@aol.com> From: "And Rosta" pc: > a.rosta@ntlworld.com writes: > > 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"? 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'm not sure I follow, since the example doesn't seem to be an example of > what I took the general case to be. Let me try another tack. Is "na ge p gi q" synonymous with "jitfa fa le du'u ge p gi q"? Yes? Well, if so, suppose someone claims "ge F(ko'a) gi G(ko'a)", column A. I know that the true/correct claim is "go F(ko'a) gi G(ko'a)", column C, and not "na ku ge F(ko'a) gi G(ko'a)", column B. A B C p q ge p gi q na ge p gi q go p gi q T T T F T T F F T F F T F T F F F F T T How do I indicate that the asserter of A is mistaken, without myself asserting B? > But to try to deal with the general case > first, I suppose that {na'e} would work {p ina'eje q} (I'm not sure the > grammar works here) "p somehow other than 'and' q" I'm not at all sure what > this would *mean*; in one sense it does not even seem to require even that > one or the other is in fact false, though another sense does seem to require > at least this. > Now, for the example. If you know that p iff q and you know that p and q is > false, then presumably what you know is that neither p nor q is true. But I > suspect that this is not getting to what you want. > > 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?> > > Maybe that is the problem. I would not make much sense of the original > question about totally particularized claims (place, time, world, whatever > fixed) only about relations between fairly general cases, thunder na'e e > lightning, say -- they don't just cooccur, but what the best way to spell out > the range of possibilities is may not be perfectly clear. So, in that sense > (the sense of a truth table, in effect) this is a possible worlds question, > it presupposes a range of possible situations involving the same > components. > For a single case, there is only one of these possibilities realized and it > can either be spelled out or left as the denial of any incompatible case. A- and O- connectives are pointless for very particular cases too. --And.