A pair of how-do-i-say-it's

[Ivan A Derzhanski <cbmvax!uunet!COGSCI.EDINBURGH.AC.UK!iad>]

Now I'll be damned.  Here I see Colin doing something very strange -
seeking a way to say something non-trivial, even if it is not true.
What's going on?

>  From: CJ FINE <C.J.Fine@bradford>
>  Date: Mon, 23 Mar 92 19:48:21 GMT
>
>  I think the problem is mostly with the existential quantifier, and
>  partly with the choice of logical connective.

And partly with the analogy between objects and predicates being false.

>  <...> if you say
>
>  robu'a zo'u la buc. bu'a .ubu sy. .ijo la meidjr. bu'a la britn
>  for all relationships P, P(GB,US) if and only if P(JM,UK)

(By the way, UK includes Great Britain _and_ Northern Ireland.)

Facts:

  president( GB, US) = true   prime_minister( GB, US) = false
  president( JM, UK) = false  prime_minister( JM, UK) = true

  q := lambda t lambda (x, y) [x has lived in y for t years]
  N1 := the number of years GB has spent in US
  N2 := the number of years JM has spent in UK
  q( N1)( GB, US) = true   q( N1)( JM, UK) = false
  q( N2)( GB, US) = false  q( N2)( JM, UK) = true

and so on.  That existential quantifier doesn't work.

>  You get something which is not strictly true, but is essentially what
>  you were trying to capture.

Since it is not true, it can't be what we're trying to capture.

The English sentence `GB is to US what JM is to UK' is painfully
illogical.  Trying to put it into logic won't work.

Ivan