counterfactual correlation: Difference between revisions

From Lojban
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
 
mNo edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
===  cmavo: lo'e (LE) ===


====  Proposed Defiition ====
A particular kind of conditional in which the speaker associates


Typical article. Converts a selbri, selecting its first argument, into a sumti. The resulting expression indicates that the individuals that satisfy the selbri typically also satisfy the predicate for which the sumti is an argument. Quantifiers do not have a clear meaning with this gadri.
some possible situation (which is known to not actually be true)


====  Proposed Tag ====
with something that could be an outcome of it.


====  See Also ====
In lojban this is probably best rendered using
* {le'e}
* {le}
* {lo}


====  Proposed Keywords ====
[[jbocre: mu'ei|mu'ei]] (see also [[jbocre: possible worlds and mu'ei|possible worlds and mu'ei]]), and certainly cannot be


* the typical
rendered with ganai ... gi ..., and here's why:


====  Usage Examples ====
(~p v q)            (ganai P gi Q) (p -> q)


;lo'e glipre cu xabju le fi'ortu'a na.e le gligugde:"The typical English person dwells not in Africa but in England."
implies any of the following:
;ju'o cu'i mi milxe simsa lo'e makcu prenu:"Perhaps I am a little like the grown-ups."


====  Notes ====
(~~q v ~p)          (~q -> ~p)


lu lo'e broda cu brode li'u mintu lu lo ka ce'u brode cu zilfadni lo'i ro broda li'u
(~(p & A) v q)      where A is true and isn't ~p.


====  Issues ====
~(p & ~q)            [[jbocre: DeMorgan's law|DeMorgan's law]]
[http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/browse_thread/thread/d2bd528b13bede04 Another argument about unicorns.]


===  cmavo:le'e (LE) ===
and a bunch of other stuff.


====  Proposed Definition ====
It's easy to find examples of "if" in english (counterfactuals


Stereotypical article. Converts a selbri, selecting its first argument, into a sumti. The resulting expression indicates that the individuals that the speaker describes with the selbri typically satisfy, from the point of view of the speaker, the predicate for which the sumti is an argument. Quantifiers do not have a clear meaning with this gadri.
claims among them) which do *not* obey the above, and thus cannot


====  Proposed Tag ====
possibly correspond to claims with TFTT as the truth function.


====  See Also ====
Examples:


* {le'o}
If I had a million dollars then I would quit my job. (p -> q ?)
* {le}


* {lo}
does *not* imply


====  Proposed Keywords ====
If I don't quit my job then I don't have a million dollars. (~q -> ~p)
* the stereotypical


====  Usage Examples ====
And,
;le'e xelso merko cu gusta ponse:"Lots of Greek-Americans own restaurants."
;le'e rozgu cu xunre:"Roses are red."


====  Notes ====
John needs oxygen to live. (We need to state this to be able to add it below, according to the rules)
lu le'e broda cu brode li'u mintu lu pe'i lo ka ce'u brode cu zilfadni le'i broda li'u


====  Issues ====
If John were born on Mercury then he wouldn't need oxygen to live. (p -> q ?)


=== General Section Issues ===
does *not* imply


*The contextual definitions of ''lo'e'' and ''le'e'' are given as a starting point towards their formalization, but many questions remain unanswered:
If John were born on Mercury and he needs oxygen to live then he  [jbocre: p & A) -> q)
** Negation: Is ''lo'e broda na brode'' equivalent to ''lo ka ce'u na brode cu mutce kampu lo'i ro broda'' or  to ''lo ka ce'u brode cu na mutce kampu lo'i ro broda''?
 
** Expansions: Is ''lo'e broda cu brode gi'e brodi'' equivalent to ''lo ka ce'u brode gi'e brodi cu mutce kampu lo'i ro broda'' or  to ''lo ka ce'u brode e lo ka ce'u brodi cu mutce kampu lo'i ro broda''?
wouldn't need oxygen to live.
** Multiple lo'e: Is ''lo'e broda cu brode lo'e brodi'' equivalent to ''lo ka ce'u brode ce'u cu mutce kampu lo'i ro broda pi'u lo'i ro brodi'' or to something else?
 
** Subordination: Is ''lo nu lo'e broda cu brode cu brodi'' equivalent to ''lo ka lo nu ce'u broda cu brode cu mutce kampu lo'i broda'' or to ''lo nu lo ka ce'u brode cu mutce kampu lo'i broda cu brodi''?
(Feel free to furnish this page with additional (or better) examples).
** ...
 
* Usage convention suggestions
----
**'''lo'e se''' with the word for a kind of organism can refer to the taxon containing all members of the kind and no others, if that exists. So ''lo'e se guzme'' means the family Cucurbitaceae, while ''lo se guzme'' can be Cucumis, Sicyos, Luffa, or any of several others. ''lo'e se jesymabru'', however, has no clear meaning, as ''jesymabru'' can refer to both spiny anteaters and hedgehogs.
 
The true intent behind "million dollars" is "My becoming a millionaire would greatly increase the chances of my quitting my job.", since we don't want to claim that there is no other condition under which I'd quit, etc. Play with brivla containing the rafsi for cunso, or consider an experimental NU that abstracts the probability of the event occurring. --[[User:xod|xod]]
 
This is exactly what i mean (''mi'e maikl.''). It is necessary to deconstruct all such statements before translating them into Lojban. After awhile, the desire to phrase one's actual utterances in that way would disappear; & argument would cease...

Revision as of 16:46, 4 November 2013

A particular kind of conditional in which the speaker associates

some possible situation (which is known to not actually be true)

with something that could be an outcome of it.

In lojban this is probably best rendered using

mu'ei (see also possible worlds and mu'ei), and certainly cannot be

rendered with ganai ... gi ..., and here's why:

(~p v q) (ganai P gi Q) (p -> q)

implies any of the following:

(~~q v ~p) (~q -> ~p)

(~(p & A) v q) where A is true and isn't ~p.

~(p & ~q) DeMorgan's law

and a bunch of other stuff.

It's easy to find examples of "if" in english (counterfactuals

claims among them) which do *not* obey the above, and thus cannot

possibly correspond to claims with TFTT as the truth function.

Examples:

If I had a million dollars then I would quit my job. (p -> q ?)

does *not* imply

If I don't quit my job then I don't have a million dollars. (~q -> ~p)

And,

John needs oxygen to live. (We need to state this to be able to add it below, according to the rules)

If John were born on Mercury then he wouldn't need oxygen to live. (p -> q ?)

does *not* imply

If John were born on Mercury and he needs oxygen to live then he [jbocre: p & A) -> q)

wouldn't need oxygen to live.

(Feel free to furnish this page with additional (or better) examples).

The true intent behind "million dollars" is "My becoming a millionaire would greatly increase the chances of my quitting my job.", since we don't want to claim that there is no other condition under which I'd quit, etc. Play with brivla containing the rafsi for cunso, or consider an experimental NU that abstracts the probability of the event occurring. --xod

This is exactly what i mean (mi'e maikl.). It is necessary to deconstruct all such statements before translating them into Lojban. After awhile, the desire to phrase one's actual utterances in that way would disappear; & argument would cease...

Retrieved from "https://mw.lojban.org/index.php?title=counterfactual_correlation&oldid=74679"