Talk:reduced logical form

From Lojban
Revision as of 15:00, 26 January 2015 by Gleki (talk | contribs) (Created page with "<div><div><div><div><div>Posted by [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/user2 rlpowell] on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 22:31 GMT posts: 14214</div><div> So, I see that you are obviously build...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
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

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

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

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

rlpowellPosted 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

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

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