Re: Nonfirstorderizability
- From: "george" <greeneg@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 21 Aug 2005 15:16:33 -0700
> > |> How about
> > |> Axy[ Vx&Ty -> Euv[ Rxu & Ryv & Huv & Hvu ] ]
> > |
> > |How does that differ from what you snipped:
> > | AxAyEzEu((Vx -> Rzx) & (Ty -> Ruy) & (Hzu & Huz))
> > |?
> > Suppose there are no villagers or townsmen. Then the
> > first version is true, while the second version still
> > requires that (if there is anyone) there exists either
> > one person z=u who hates himself or two people z<>u
> > who hate each other.
George Dance wrote:
> I was hoping that george would answer the question, but...
>
> That is a difference:
I know that my version comes up true in the degenerate/empty
case. If we are talking about villagers and townsmen then
SURELY we are entitled to believe that it DOES NOT MATTER
how our truth-values come out when there AREN'T any.
Obviously, anybody who CARED could just ADD
Exy[Vx&Ty] as a conjunct to mine. But I would advocate
not caring, as opposed to adding it.
Natural language has presuppositions.
Normally if we are predicating things of villagers
and townsmen then we have PREsupposed (as OPPOSED to
asserting) that they exist. "Strawsonian presupposition"
is ALSO (apparently) "nonfirstorderizable".
I was also NOT trying to assert here that "normally,
if we are predicating things of dragons and unicorns,
then we have presupposed that they exist".
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Nonfirstorderizability
- From: William of Ockham
- Re: Nonfirstorderizability
- References:
- Nonfirstorderizability
- From: Michael De
- Re: Nonfirstorderizability
- From: Michael De
- Re: Nonfirstorderizability
- From: George Dance
- Re: Nonfirstorderizability
- From: Michael De
- Re: Nonfirstorderizability
- From: George Dance
- Re: Nonfirstorderizability
- From: Torkel Franzen
- Re: Nonfirstorderizability
- From: George Dance
- Re: Nonfirstorderizability
- From: Torkel Franzen
- Re: Nonfirstorderizability
- From: George Dance
- Re: Nonfirstorderizability
- From: george
- Re: Nonfirstorderizability
- From: George Dance
- Re: Nonfirstorderizability
- From: Keith Ramsay
- Re: Nonfirstorderizability
- From: George Dance
- Nonfirstorderizability
- Prev by Date: Re: What does Gödel's Incompleteness mean for the Working Mathematician?
- Next by Date: Re: Constructive Math query.
- Previous by thread: Re: Nonfirstorderizability
- Next by thread: Re: Nonfirstorderizability
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|