WikiDiscuss

WikiDiscuss


Wiki page BPFK Section: Subordinators changed

posts: 143

Jorge Llambas wrote:

>--- xod:
>
>
>>I think that is all I ever wanted: that zo'e can refer to the empty set
>>when appropriate.
>>
>>
>
>When would you need it, for example?
>
>

When the other places are interesting. A discussion about the contents
of lidless bottles.

>>We could make an analogy with monetary values. If something is free, we
>>could say that it has no (monetary!) value, or that it has a value, and
>>that value's magnitude happens to be 0. They are both true.
>>
>>
>
>Well, in Lojban {ta rupnu li no} says that it costs zero dollars, and
>{ta rupnu no da} says that it has no monetary value. But they couldn't
>both be true at the same time! The second one says that nothing is
>related to ta by the {rupnu} relationship, and the first one says that
>the value li no is related to ta by the {rupnu} relationship. Only
>one of them can be true.
>
>

But stepping away from the Lojban symbols you can see that not only can
they both be so, but that each implies the other! Which would you use to
discuss a free item, and why would the other form then be false?


--
Iraqi Olympic Soccer Coach Adnan Hamad: "You cannot speak about a team that represents freedom. We do not have freedom in Iraq, we have an occupying force. This is one of our most miserable times. To be honest with you, even our happiness at winning is not happiness because we are worried about the problems in Iraq, all the daily problems that our people face back home, so to tell you the truth, we are not really happy."