Wiki page BPFK Section: Subordinators changed
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 07:18:55PM -0400, xod wrote:
> Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> >--- xod:
> >>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!
Absolutely not!
{ta rupnu no da} == {ta na rupnu da} ~= {ta na rupnu li no}
{ta rupnu li no} ~= {ta rupnu da}
These two are not even *slightly* similar assertions!
One is "free", the other is "not for sale at any price",
approximately.
-Robin