Re: tech: logic matters

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>]

>> 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}.

I *think* that the status quo is that "ro broda" is rather uncertain in
definition.  Cowan has proposed a change, I think to ro da poi from ro lo.
I am uncertain - my leanings were the other way - to "ro le".  "ro broda"
in my mind is NOT part of the logical expressioj of the language - it is a
fuzzy-semantics-naturalistic-shortcut.  You should NOT use it if you want
to be logically exact.

ro da poi da broda is I THINK a claim that broda's exist if I understand pc,
and I have no problem with this unless there is some marking of
 hypotheticalness.  If I recall previous pc pronouncements, unicorns exist by
 the fact that we
talk about them from a logical standpoint, so the "universe of discourse" has
nothing to do with the real world.  (If I have pc wrong on this, it is
undoubtedly my fuzzy memory/understanding.)  In any event, whatever pc
says is the way it will be in the language writeups unless Cowan chooses
to ignore pc and no one notices %^)

I believe that >I< have assumed that ro lo broda is close to equivalent
to ro da ganai ... gi.  But that is the "lo

" that brings in the conditional existence.

>What I do care about is that
>{ro (lo) broda} should be equiv to {ro da ganai broda gi}.

I think that with the "lo" there, it is the case, as I just said.  Without
the "lo", it may no longer be the same as with the "lo".

In case of dispute between pc and jimc, pc wins by historical "rightness".
In the earlier discussions, I don't think that there was ever a time when
JCB backed jimc's opinions when it disagreed with pc's.  jimc has some
assumptions about logic, perhaps from his math background, that differ
significantly from what pc has authority status on, and pc can point to
references, something I don;t think jimc ever has done.  So it is one man's
opinions about what logic is or should be vs. another man's expertise as to
what it is backed by McCawley and various others he has referenced through the
years.

>> 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.

I don't think you are that bad, but I sometimes get as frustrated  with you as
I understand pc got with jim back in the early 80s.  The stubbornness is
similar.  You are just a bit better on staying within the letter of the
prescription (other than orthography) while challenging it.  jimc rejected
the prescription that JCB w3as promulgating.

>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.

pc has made clear that there are many schools of logic, schools that make
many different assumptions about natlang shortcuts.  Mathematical jargon is
NOT the version of English/natlangs that we are focussing on in trying to
model natural language usage.  We want to have a WAY to express what
 mathematical language needs, and I think we do (including the relatively
 untested MEX),
but it is NOT the underlying version of logic that we have chosen for Loglan/
Lojban. JCB had discussions with Jeff Prothero about a mathematics-based
Loglan mod 2, but among other things they agreed that any hyper-Loglan would be
something that could probably be argued about in Loglan far better than in
English, so we will wait for some later generation of fluent Lojbanists
to design Loglan mod 2.

lojbab