Re: xor questions (was Re: indirect Qs (was Re: On logji lo

["Jorge J. Llambías" <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>]

Lojbab:
>li pa cu namcu  .iku'i li pa na du lo namcu
>because the latter is not constrained to specifically identify li pa

Is that a new rule, that {du} only accepts specific sumti?
So this according to you would be false:

        da poi namcu zo'u li pa du da
        There is a number x, such that 1 = x.

Is there a point for such a strange rule?

>du is multiplace and amthematical equality is transitive.  Thus
>li pa du lo namcu
>.ijebo li re du lo namcu
>.inaja li pa du li re lo namcu

No, that doesn't follow at all. You're reasoning as if {lo namcu}
were a specific reference, which of course it isn't. This is what
each of your three sentences mean:

        li pa du da poi namcu
        1 = some x which is a number    TRUE

        li re du de poi namcu
        2 = some x which is a number   TRUE

        li pa du li re du di poi namcu
        1 = 2 = some x which is a number    FALSE

Somehow you want to make the third follow from the first
two, which does not make sense.

>Did I getthose connectives right?

The connectives were right, the logic behind them wasn't.

co'o mi'e xorxes