On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 6:09 PM, Jorge Llambías
<jjllambias@hidden.email> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 4:43 PM, And Rosta <and.rosta@hidden.email> wrote:
>
> Would it make sense to have instead of the operator "ju", a binary
> counterpart of "fV"? E.g. "hV"?
"hV" would be equivalent to "fV ju", right?
Very close at least. As far as I can tell, "la sma fa ju F1 F2" means:
"the state of affairs A occurs in which there is an anonymous composed event in which both F1 and F2".
...while "la sma ha F1 F2" would mean:
"the composed event A occurs in which both F1 and F2".
Generally, given "fu fo fi fe fa F", what is the precise semantic difference between A and U? Does anyone see any?
Instead of "ju" you would need something like "lV smV hV".
And instead of "ju F1 ju F2 F3", we would have "lV smV hV F1 hV F2
F3"? That's assuming that a state of affairs in which F occurs is
equivalent to a state of affairs, in which a state of affairs in which
F occurs, occurs.
Yes, I wrote above before reading through carefully. If no one can think of a good reason otherwise, then I would say that given any "fa [Be Re] fe F", A and E refer to the same state(s) of affairs. Is there any reason to object to this interpretation?