[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Sun, Nov 10, 2002 at 12:15:15AM -0000, And Rosta wrote:
> Jordan:
[...]
> > Ax((Fx & ~Fx) -> Gx)
> > is true for any universe, and any predicates F and G. (A false
[...]
> Sorry if I'm being obtuse, but I don't understand the connection
> between what you say here and the text it is responding to.
Well:
> > > > If not there's nothing to prevent you from claiming {lu'a pi PA
> > > > lo'i pavyseljirna cu broda} for any PA or any broda, and being
> > > > perfectly correct
> > > Not by any sensical epistemology I can think of. Every claim is
> > > true or false of a given world. Give me a set of truth conditions
If we have a nonimporting ro, it's very sensical to have that claim.
And even with a importing ro, similar such claims can be made.
> > [...]
> > > > There's another more sinister problem with this: it makes *all*
> > > > universal claims false. Because for anything of the form where in
> > > > this world Ax(Gx -> Fx), we can make another state of afairs where
> > > > there's another Gx which isn't Fx. If you want Ax to iterate over
> > > > the possible values which aren't even in the current universe, I
> > > > think it's more destructive to the logical system than our inconsistency
> > > > with De Morgan
> > >
> > > Read what I've said above & see if you still think this
> > >
> > > Your comments above and below all make much more sense to me if
> > > you weren't aware of the convention of the implicit world-indicator
> >
> > Yeah; I misunderstood what you were suggesting. I thought you were
> > suggesting that Ax should cause x to be evaluated for all the values
> > in *all* worlds
> >
> > So, now that I understand what you're saying (I think): I think it
> > is entirely beside the point. Yes, in some universes we can say
> > ro pavyseljirna with import, or su'o pavyseljirna and be making
> > true statements. But I think you're trying to skirt around the
> > issue again, instead of addressing the real point: in a world with
> > *no* unicorns, what is the truth value of {ro pavyseljirna cu broda},
> > and what is the truth value of {naku ro pavyseljirna cu broda}
> > Hopefully one is true and one is false ;)
>
> Here's my answer:
>
> {ro lo (su'o) in-this-world pavyseljirna cu brode} -- FALSE
> {na ku ro lo (su'o) in-this-world pavyseljirna cu brode} -- TRUE
If that is the case, and you accept the naku rules,
su'o lo su'o in-this-world pavyseljirna naku broda
should also be TRUE. But it isn't.
I'd rather not kill the naku rules (adding a "make sure it isn't
a unicorn exception") when we don't need to.
For example. If i'm talking about an indeterminate function F (bu'a),
and an indeterminate function G (bu'e), I should be able to say
(A: Fx) (Gx) |- ~(E: Fx) ~(Gx)
ro da poi ke'a bu'a cu bu'e |-
naku su'o da poi ke'a bu'a ku'o naku bu'e
These aren't true if we have to make sure bu'a doesn't mean "unicorn"
first.
--
Jordan DeLong - fracture@hidden.email
lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u
sei la mark. tuen. cusku
Attachment:
binKvrfLIObE6.bin
Description: application/ygp-stripped