WikiDiscuss Help

Forums > WikiDiscuss > Reduced logical form

Reduced logical form


rlpowell posts: 14214
Use this thread to discuss the Reduced logical form page.


rlpowell 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



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

 




rlpowell 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

 



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

 


Show posts: