Re: LAhE and quantifiers

Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:


> {ro lu'a ko'a e ko'e} is equivalent to {ro lu'a ko'a ku'a ko'e},
> each member of the intersection of ko'a and ko'e, and {ro lu'a
> ko'a a ko'e} is equivalent to {ro lu'a ko'a jo'e ko'e}, each member
> of the union of ko'a and ko'e.

Entering a belated protest to this. Logical connection, except for
tanru logical connection, *always* factors out to the bridi level.
So "ro lu'a ko'a .e ko'e" means "[li'o] ro lu'a ko'a [li'o] .ije
[li'o] ro lu'a ko'e".

BTW, as a byproduct of "JCB speaks!" I now grasp that jo'u, the mystery
JOI, is designed to create Collectives, and is the true equivalent
of Loglan ze, which is Loglan's only non-logical connective.

> {ro lu'a ko'a enai ko'e} is each member of ko'a that is not a 
> member of ko'e, etc.

No. But this makes me realize that we have no easy way to do
set complements, and probably need a LAhE for the purpose.

> Is {lu'i ko'a} some set that has ko'a
> as one of its members, or is it the set that has ko'a as its only
> member, or something else? 

The latter. But if ko'a is Distributive, then we get a non-singleton set:
if we have bound ko'a to le re cutci, then lu'i ko'a has cardinality 2.

> If we take the complement to be the full list of the members,
> we run into trouble with things like {lu'i ko'a enai ko'e}.
> How is that different from {lu'i ko'a}? And what is 
> {lu'i ko'a a ko'e}?

Viewing these properly as factored out to the bridi level eliminates
the problem. As for the non-logical set connectives, they make nonsense if
applied to non-sets.

-- 
All Gaul is divided into three parts: the part John Cowan
that cooks with lard and goose fat, the part www.ccil.org/~cowan
that cooks with olive oil, and the part that www.reutershealth.com
cooks with butter. -- David Chessler jcowan-k6JZYsoqQQ8PxK1qzZLvrwC/[email protected]