[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Tue, 14 Jan 2003, John Cowan wrote:
> Invent Yourself scripsit:
>
> > It's a mirror of the question of importing ro. Doesn't zi'o na blanu have
> > the same set of valid no 0-tuples as does zi'o blanu? Consider zi'o jetnu
> > zi'o, which should be considered the negation of zi'o jitfa zi'o, and a
> > contradiction will emerge. If a statement and its negation are both false,
> > the statement should be considered meaningless. Falsehood should not be
> > considered the default truth value.
>
> This Prolog-style model does not apply to sentences that are under negation.
> The meaning of the negation of an ordinary n-place predicate is the set of
> n-tuples that don't form truths when plugged into the predicate, so
> na dunda's meaning is the set {..., {John, toy-1, xod}, ... }, because I have
> not given you the toy named "toy-1".
>
> By the same token, the extensional meaning of the selbri "zi'o na blanu"
> is {()}, the set containing the singleton 0-tuple. So the bridi "zi'o
> na blanu" is true.
Where's the asymmetry between blanu and na blanu? Doesn't your "proof"
prove that zi'o broda = false? Then set broda = na blanu.
Clearly the prolog model breaks down to nonsense and contradictions for
0-tuples.
--
// if (!terrorist)
// ignore ();
// else
collect_data ();