[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: TECH: QUERY: quantifier scope & cumki
la kolin. cusku di'e
> And asks:
> How does one distinguish:
> For every x, it is possible that x is ....
> It is possible that every x is ....
> I don't see a problem:
> ro da zo'u cumki fa le nu da broda
> cumki fa le nu ro da zo'u da broda
Correct. The rules seem to say that the un-prenexed form
cumki fa le nu da broda
means the latter, on the assumption that an undeclared logical variable is
effectively declared with the smallest possible scope.
> Until I noticed your subject I thought you were asking a different
> question - not about the predicative 'it is possible' but about
> the operators of modal logic - 'it is possible that' and
> 'it is necessary that'. Somehow the selbri 'cumki' and
> 'nibli' don't seem right for these.
Well, they are and they aren't. Loglan, generally speaking, takes a Quinian
view of such things. "nibli" is closer to the sentence operator Nec, which
in Quine takes a quoted sentence, than to the standard modal operator nec.
At least we know that Nec is logically tractable, which is not true of nec --
cf. the well-known paradox:
nec 5 < 9
9 = the number of planets
nec 5 < the number of planets
which is fallacious. Replacing "nec" with "Nec('...')" prevents us from
inferring things about the opaque argument, and so such bogosities are
Nec ~. :-)
John Cowan firstname.lastname@example.org ...!uunet!lock60!snark!cowan
e'osai ko sarji la lojban.