Re: Nonfirstorderizability


george wrote:
> > > |> 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: That is a difference: <Unsnip> On george's 'boolean' interpretation, "Some
relative of each villager and some relative of each townsman hate each
other" does not imply that "Some people hate each other": it would be
illogical to infer, from someone's asserting the first statement, that
he is also asserting the second.

> 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.

And it DOES NOT MATTER whether anyone hates anyone?

> 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.

Given such a presumption, the assertion ""Some
relative of each villager and some relative of each townsman hate each
other" does imply that "Some people hate each other"
Yet that's the very implication that your translation of the sentence
ignores (and would render invalid). The question is why: as you
understand fully well that "natural language has presuppositions," why
would you imagine accurately translating a natural language statement
requires cleansing out those presuppositions?

> "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".

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Nonfirstorderizability
    ... >> |How does that differ from what you snipped: ... If we are talking about villagers and townsmen then ... Natural language has presuppositions. ... asserting) that they exist. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Nonfirstorderizability
    ... > Natural language has presuppositions. ... > Normally if we are predicating things of villagers ... > asserting) that they exist. ... If I say "at least one townsman is ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Nonfirstorderizability
    ... > relative of each villager and some relative of each townsman hate each ... > Yet that's the very implication that your translation of the sentence ... > understand fully well that "natural language has presuppositions," why ... You CAN'T EQUATE presuppostion with assertion! ...
    (sci.logic)