Re: Nonfirstorderizability

"George Dance" <georgedance04@xxxxxxxx> writes:

> ExEyAz((x/=y) & (Cx & Cy) & (Axy & Ayx) & (Axz -> (Cz & Azx)) & (Ayz ->
> (Cz & Azy))).
>
> Not a simplification, I'm afraid, but a better translation of "Some
> critics admire only each other". ("There are at least two critics who
> admire each other, both or all of whom admire only critics who admire
> them."

I guess this too is a possible interpretation of "Some critics
admire only each other". Those who write about branching quantifiers
use some odd examples, such as Hintikka's

Some relative of each villager and some relative
of each townsman hate each other.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Nonfirstorderizability
    ... would you mind explaining to a simple lay person ... I take that sentence to imply the Geach-Kaplan sentence but not the ... That there are at most two critics who admire only each other ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Nonfirstorderizability
    ... > I take that sentence to imply the Geach-Kaplan sentence but not the ... That there are at most two critics who admire only each other ... predicate, let me see what happens when that predicate is removed: ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Nonfirstorderizability
    ... This formalizes "There are two critics who ... reasonable reading of the odd statement "Some critics admire only ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Nonfirstorderizability
    ... >> Not a simplification, I'm afraid, but a better translation of "Some ... >> admire each other, both or all of whom admire only critics who admire ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Nonfirstorderizability
    ... > only each other does not imply that there are at most two critics who ... > admire only each other--there could be three, four, etc. ... cited) does not assume mutual admiration. ... Prev by Date: ...
    (sci.logic)