BPFK Section: Epistemology sumtcita
> On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 05:36:04 -0800 (PST), John
> E Clifford wrote:
> > A new argument relates its sumti to the whole
> > predication, not conversely. It just adds
> one
> > more relation to the original; it does not
> take
> > the original as a whole as a relatum.
>
> A relationship F'(a,b,c) can always be defined
> as a composition
> G(F(a,b), c), can't it?
>
> All I'm doing is trying to figure out what G is
> in terms of the
> underlying selbri of the BAI that adds argument
> c to F(a,b)
> to give F'(a,b,c)
The issue is rather whether F'(a b G*(c)) need
bear any relation to G(F(ab) c). The functor for
which the composition rules hold are a very
limited sort, rarely met with in BAI, I think.
For normal predicates it seems that rewriting its
expansion will be much more complex and
idiosyncratic.