Reduced logical form Posted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Nov, 2004 22:29 GMT posts: 14214 Use this thread to discuss the Reduced logical form page.
Posted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Nov, 2004 22:31 GMT posts: 14214 So, I see that you are obviously building a kernel language for Lojban, presumably one containing only the logical bits. What I'm missing is why. -Robin
Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 02:07 GMT posts: 1912 > So, I see that you are obviously building a kernel language for Lojban, > presumably one containing only the logical bits. > > What I'm missing is why. Does there always have to be a why? I started doing it because of the eternal discussion about NA and its scope. I think using the reduced logical form we can more clearly see what the alternatives are. But besides that, I think it is a useful thing to show that the logical language truly does match up with ordinary first order logic to a great extent, and it is also useful to know exactly where it does not. I was pleasantly surprized by how easy it turned out to be doing the reduction, mostly. I have completely ignored indicators and free modifiers. So for example the algorithm won't produce a reduced form for {doi ro da poi me ko da cuxna pa karda}. I guess it should have to reduce to something like: {e'o ro da poi me do zo'u pa de poi karda zo'u cuxna fa da de} Anyway, leaving indicators aside, I found two points where I could not do the reduction: mixed connective+tag, and VUhO relative-clauses. I also still have to do sumti non-logical connectives, but I think those won't be a problem. (And there are some issues I haven't considered yet, like {bu'a}, {no'a}, and the like, which may or may not need special treatment.) mu'o mi'e xorxes __ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com
Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 20:59 GMT posts: 14214 > I started doing it because of the eternal discussion about NA and > its scope. I think using the reduced logical form we can more > clearly see what the alternatives are. Coolness. > But besides that, I think it is a useful thing to show that the > logical language truly does match up with ordinary first order > logic to a great extent, and it is also useful to know exactly > where it does not. You mean second order, don't you? > I was pleasantly surprized by how easy it turned out to be doing > the reduction, mostly. I have completely ignored indicators and > free modifiers. As you should. Good luck. -Robin
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 12 of Jan, 2005 01:30 GMT Re: Reduced logical form So, I see that you are obviously building a kernel language for Lojban, presumably one containing only the logical bits. What I'm missing is why. -Robin