WikiDiscuss

WikiDiscuss


BPFK Section: Logical Variables

posts: 2388

A> Well, I am being dense here, but this looks like the first case ("I is an individual")If there are n+a zillion things among I, then there will be n things among I and an individual among I but not among those those n things, indeed, a zillion such. The formula works for "at least n+1" but that is not what was sought.

B> Some I are broda and some J are the broda, some K are identical to I and K is all of J. So, if there is 1 broda, then this is true. If there are two broda, the the first clause is true: pick any of x, y, x+y. If we pick x or y, then this is false, since K (i.e I) is not all of J. If we pick x+y then it is true. So it is not equivalent to 1x:x broda. Sorry it took so long.

C> One of the points here was to get rid of all these "all"s. All this going around has helped me sort through a mess of stuff (making public mistakes along the way), but this last bit puts the finishing touches on one more try: QX:FxGX depends upon the notion of *the* Fs or rather the F's, where F' is the distributive correlate of F, "is involved in F".
Then, if a are the F's iff ~EI:I are F ~I among a & ~EJ: J among a & J individual ~K:K are F J among K. And some existence things I need to sneak in there somehow — or just move over to normal universals. Then the quantified sentence above is just EI: I are the F & G)'sEJ: J are the F's I is Q of J. Some fuzzy stuff here still, so plese knock this doen so it comes into focus.

Jorge Llambías <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar> wrote:


> 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").

A>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.

B>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}.

C>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