WikiDiscuss

pc:
> Lambda is not for the cases where all do but some do not.

Huh? It's for the cases where all do even though some may not.
That's just what McKay uses it for! As in "All students surround
the building". The dual of E on the other hand, is for the cases
where any and all do (and therefore it is not the case that some
do not: ~E~.)

> Those cases arise independently of lambda, namely from trying to expand the
> subject (without an existence proof) or when the sortal is collective (that
> that move does not work is part of the definition of "collective"). So those
> cases will be treated the same under my quantifier as under lambda, but the
> anomolous cases won't arise.

No, no. Your quantifier, namely "~Ex(Fx & ~Gx) & ExFx" fails for this
case, because when all students surround the building it is easy to
find some students that don't surround the building. This has nothing
to do with existential import.

> Nostalgia! Familiarity is a pain! When I saw the stock definition of "1 F
> is G," I did not pay any attention to it. But it is wrong for McKay's
> version, which is "EI: I is F I is G and I is 1 in number."

I was not giving McKay's version of anything. I was giving an example
of a sentence that is true with singular variables and false with
plural variables. Anyway, McKay's numeric quantifiers are not "exact",
so when he says 3X:FX it may be the case that more than three things
are F.

> The last
> clause is just "I is an individual" ("E J: J among I I among J")

I guess you mean "[A J: J among I] I among J".

> (the other
> numbers can be built on this inductively, given a defined "I is n in number,"
> "I is n+1 in number is just "EJ: J among I J is n in number & E K: K among
> I and K not among J K is 1 in number").

Yes.

> The nearest McKay comes to what you
> suggest is "the Fs that are G are one in number," where "the Fs that are G"
> is something like what you offer: "EI:I is F I is G & A J: J is F and G J
> among I" (or so).

What did I suggest?

All I did was give a sentence that is true with singular variables
and false with plural variables, I never even attempted to say
"exactly one thing is a broda" using plural variables.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com