Wiki page Lojban Formulae changed
wrote:
>
> pc:
> > Note that the quantification per se is
> > just over groups and is always (in
> nonnegative
> > contexts) particular: "there is a group such
> > that".
>
> What happens with {su'eci}? Is that "at most
> three,
> possibly none" or "at most three and at least
> one"?
I think it is the latter, but the other could be
accomodated fairly easily (though disjunctively:
"either no subgroup is brode or one of between 1
and 3 brodas is"). I think this can be
eventually worked into the predicate notion of
enumeration.
> > Having found the group we can then
> > enumerate it.
>
> But that's not how you have defined it. You
> have the
> enumeration as part of what must be satisfied
> by the group.
> For {Q lo broda cu brode} you have:
>
> Ix: x group & xF Iz: z group & xCz z d-G &
> z is Q of x
>
> There is some group of brodas x, such that
> there is some
> subgroup z among them, such that z are brode
> and Q in
> number.
>
> Your description above ("having found the group
> we can
> then enumerate it") would correspond more to
> something like
>
> Ix: x group & xF Iz: z group & xCz z d-G &
> "the brodes among the brodas are Q in number".
>
> I didn't formalize the second part because it
> would take me
> several lines, but in any case it is outside
> the scope of
> the Ix quantifier.
>
> In other words, is {Q lo broda cu brode}
>
> (1) "Among the brodas, there is at least one
> group that
> is Q in number and brodes"
>
> or
>
> (2) "There's a group among the brodas that
> brodes.
> They, the brodas that brode, are Q in
> number"
>
> Your definition corresponds to (1), but your
> talk points to (2).
Yes, this is a problem with this particular
formulation — another reason to get out of
groups as fast as possible. I suppose that one
could go to "Iz: z group & xCz & zGQz", but
this seems to have some other questionable --
though so far unexplored — consequences (not the
least being that I would have to agree with McKay
on at least one of his problematic claims).
In particular, the rhetoric seems wrong, even if
the facts are OK. Again, I hope that this has
been cleared up in the last section.