tech: logic matters

[ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>]

> x: With my choices for imports, these are the conversions:
>  ro broda cu brode    =   ro da ganai broda gi brode
> pc: Again, I am not sure what the choice here is.  I guess it is what _ro
> broda cu brode _ is an abbreviation for.  I do not know what the
> official line is on that at the moment: is it as xorxes gives it or is
> it _ro da poi broda cu brode_?

The official line is that it = {ro da poi}. But {ro da poi} has been
being understood as equivalent to {ro da ganai ... gi}. That, I learn
from you, is wrong. So now I think it should be equivalent to
{ro da ganai ... gi}. Nothing is shorthand for {ro da poi}.

David Barton
> And writes (sorry, I am too new for the Lojban):
>   1. Apparently, if [Ax Fx] then [Ex Fx].
> Unless there is context that I am missing, this is incorrect logic.
> The first can be true and the second false if the universe of the
> statement is the empty set.
> From the Lojban discussion, I bow out as a newbie.

That's half of the ro debate. I took (1) on pc's authority. I think
jimc rejects it. Personally, I don't really care, as I am confident
of the u of d always being nonempty. What I do care about is that
{ro (lo) broda} should be equiv to {ro da ganai broda gi}.

jimc:
> And Rosta writes on 8 Feb 1996 07:47:27 +0000:
> > ... I can't understand how newcomers like Jorge
> > & Goran seem to instantly know the language inside out.
> Lojban, and Old Loglan before it, are designed on consistent principles.
> (Formerly I would have said logical principles, but it's now clear that
> the predicate "logical" doesn't have quite the right meaning.)  When a
> system is sufficiently consistent it can jell in a person's mind.  The
> brain is designed to do that; it has survival value.

Clearly my mind doesn't jell in as easily as certain other people's
do.

> In a system, specifically Lojban, I tend to see lots of relations, as
> well as relations that could exist if some "illogical" rules are tweaked.
> Thus what jelled for me was different from what others saw.  Hence the
> appelation of "Nalgol".

Sometimes Lojbab makes me think I'm doing Nabjol.

> > pc and Carter go back a long way with the mutual disrespect, which is I
> > believe only (humorously ad hominem).
> Correct (associativity parens added by jimc).

But presumably "(only humorously) ad hom" too.

> > It was pc who dubbed carters Loglan efforts as "Nalgol" because he "got
> > Loglan all backwards".  Since Carter thereafter used the label Nalgol
 himself,
> > I have alwasy presumed that no offense was taken.
> Correct.  We do seem to have a different idea of what a "logical language"
> is: "how logicians talk" vs. "designed per consistent standards such that
> you know what they are and can work with them".  Recent discussion reveals
> that the Emperor's clothes are getting tattered, and new ones might be in
> order.

Certainly pc writes like a logician (rather than a linguist). By the time
I understand him, I'm too knackered to be sure whether what I decipher
makes sense. Sometimes I just read it for the funny bits (and trust
Jorge to see to the rest). Anyway, how about you offer us your wardrobe
sometimes?

Lojbab
> This is NOT something that can be settled by a committee.  If logic has a
> standard of right and wrong, then we have to support that standard.  If
> math uses a different standard, then someone should argue for a  DIFFERENT
> short form for that standard.  I can't tell in the messages flying by
> whether that is what has resulted from this diuscussion.  But the decision
> as to what "ro" means is basically up to pc - on this matter, he IS the CLD.

Aren't maths and logic two halves of the same island? We shouldn't get
different answers. (Hey: semantics is partly logic too, so does that
make linguistics maths? I can do maths after all!)

coo, mie And