WikiDiscuss

WikiDiscuss


BPFK Section: Logical Variables

posts: 1912


pc:
> A> No, E is enough (it turns out in this case that this is also A, of
> course).

I'm sorry, but: "[E J: J among I] I among J" is not the same as
"I is an individual".

In fact "[E J: J among I] I among J" is true for any I. If I
are three individuals, then "[E J: J among I] I among J" is true.

On the other hand, "[A J: J among I] I among J" does mean that
"I is an individual".

> B> This does have to be A, otherwise this would be trivially true for any
> number greater than n.

"This" was:

(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").

What has to be A there? I think that's fine as it is.


> c> The original was
> "If da's were not singular, things like these would be false:
>
> 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."

Right.

> So, assuming you are using "1x" in the usual way, not McKay's, what effect
> does these variable being plural have on the above.

It depends on which of the two universal quantifiers we take {ro}
to represent.

If {ro} is McKay's lambda, then {ge su'o de broda gi ro di
poi broda cu du de} just means {su'o da broda}.

If {ro} is the dual of {su'o}, (McKay's inverted A) then it
does work. But then how do we say "all students surround the
building"?

mu'o mi'e xorxes





__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail