BPFK Section: Logical Variables
pc:
> Jorge LlambÃas <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar> wrote:
>> Suppose exactly three things broda. Then the right hand side
>> is true (some things are broda and they are all the brodas) but
>> is the right hand side true?
>>
>> pa da broda ijo ge su'o de broda gi ro di poi broda cu du de
>> Exactly one thing1 is a broda iff some thing2 is a broda and
>> every thing3 that is a broda is that thing2.
>
> Sorry, I was taking quantifiers as always particularizing (the normal {ro}
> etc, rather than the occasionally useful which goes by subpluralities. With
> that then, I am not sure what happens, but presumably both sides are false
> (since some of the subpluralities are not identical with the overall one and
> there are more than one plurality which brodas).
With the {ro} defined as the dual of {su'o}, (which works best as
English "any") then it might work:
Exactly one thing brodas iff some thing brodas and any bordas are
that thing.
But with {ro} as the normal plural "all", the one McKay represents with
a capital lambda, it does not work. The right hand side just says that
there are brodas: Some X brodas and all brodas are that X, which is
always true if there are brodas.
So, if for no other reason, we can't take {da} as a plural variable
at least until we decide which one of the two "all"s {ro} is.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail