WikiDiscuss

---

> Correct me if I'm wrong (and if I'm suffering from "when you have a
> hammer everything looks like a nail" disease), but this sounds like an
> intension/extension distinction. Your "constant" is referring to some
> particular item(s) in extension, while your quantification talks about
> "members of the set," i.e. the set they're in is what's important:
> intension.

I would have put it the other way around. Quantification ranges over
the extension of a set, whereas the constant I'm talking about is an
intensional object. Here is a fairly clear exposition on the
intensional/extensional distinction:
<http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~rapaport/intensional.html>

> As I recall, gadri were rightly regarded as a big mess, and
> intension/extension problems were one contributing factor to that. It
> doesn't seem reasonable that what we all considered such a disaster
> could be fixed by just a tiny change in default quantifiers and {lo} and
> such.

Well... If you want more details, there's another exposition of the
proposed system here:
<http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=XS+gadri+proposal>

The same proposal as written by And here:
<http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=XS+gadri+proposal+--+And%27s+version&highlight=XS%20gadri%20solution>

(BTW, Robin, the links to that last page from other pages don't work,
probably because of something in its name, like the "--", do you think
it can be fixed somehow?)

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Domains – Claim yours for only $14.70/year
http://smallbusiness.promotions.yahoo.com/offer