Re: Existence, Self-identity and Uniqueness.


Jan Burse wrote:
Hi

Owen wrote:
> Your objections are not worthy.
> There is no need for another try, the first try is
> more than sufficient, in spite of your misunderstanding
> of description theory.

Maybe I am misunderstanding description theory.
But you started your post with:

> Within first order predicate logic with identity, we
> can show that these terms (Existence, Self-identity
> and Uniqueness) are equivalent.

So you were not talking about description theory
initially, but you claimed something about predicate
logic with identity.

But I showed that introducing "the x:Fx" in a certain
way to FOL= renders FOL= inconsistent.

Wrong again.
The introduction of "the x:Fx" does not render FOL= inconsistent at
all, unles you foolishly assume that non-referring descriptions are
values of the indidvidual variable.

I don't do that, why do you persist in doing that??


Therefore your
equivalence proof is useless, because you can proof
anything in FOL= plus "the x:Fx".

You are not making sense here.

.

Loading