Re: The king of france is ...

Newberry <newberryxy@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

On Apr 20, 6:06 am, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
You've drawn the lines differently than I intended.  Here are the
options.  We interpret "All the apples in my basket are red" as
implying

(a) nothing about the number of apples in the basket.

  (x)(Bx -> Rx)

(b) that there is at least one apple in the basket.

  (Ex)(Bx) & (x)(Bx -> Rx)

(c) that there is more than one apple in the basket.

  (Ex)Bx & (x)[Bx -> (Rx & ~(y)(By -> y=x))]

(d) that there is not exactly one apple in the basket.

  (x)[Bx -> (Rx & ~(y)(By -> y=x))]

(d) is most implausible and I was not suggesting that we interpret the
sentence as (d).  I was suggesting that we interpret the sentence as
(a).  I don't see the phrase "All of the X satisfying P..." conveys
anything about whether or how many X satisfy P.

Oh? Do you know the difference between "apple" and "apples"? "Apple"
means "one apple", "apples" means "more than one apple."

"All unicorns have one horn." You agree that this is a true statement
and you also agree that there are no unicorns, right?

In this respect, the sentence "The apples in my basket are all red,"
is different.  It *does* seem to imply that there are at least two
such apples and I'd say that (c) is the most plausible
interpretation.  Because the sentences

  "All the apples in my basket are red."
  "The apples in my basket are all red."

are so similar, I'm willing to admit that one might interpret the
former in exactly the same way and hence choose (c).  I wouldn't, but
it's not obviously wrong.

The point is that if "the apple in my basket is red" conveys that
there is exactly one apple then "all the apples in my basket are red"
conveys that there is more than one apple.

I do not agree, but it's not obviously wrong.

I would not interpret "the apple in my basket is red" as (Ex)(Bx &
Rx & (y)(By -> y=x)), but if you choose to do so then you must also
interpret "all the apples in my basket are red" as c).

No, I do not see any reason I "must" do so. Again, what do you think
about my unicorn sentence? Do you think that it is false?

Because the uniqueness does not come from the "the" but from the fact
that the sentence is in singular. Obviously. "The apples in my basket
are red" does not imply that there is exactly one apple evan though it
also contains "the."

It comes from both the singular and the definite article. If I say,
"An apple in my basket is red," I have not claimed that exactly one
apple is red.

Furthermore "the apple in my basket is red" and "the apples in my
basket are red" are mutually exclusive. Therefore you have to
interpret the later either as more than one apple.

Russell's theory of descriptions and "all the round squares are green"
cannot both be true at the same time.

I'm beginning to wonder about your emphasis on the definite article.
Do you think that the following sentences express the same idea or
different ideas?

"All apples in my basket are red." (*)
"All the apples in my basket are red." (**)
"All of the apples in my basket are red." (***)

If you interpret the first and second differently, then that would
explain a lot. And I wouldn't say that you're necessarily wrong to do
so. So, if you wish, I'll concede that (**) is plausibly translated
as (c) while (*) is translated as (a).

None of my answers here have a damn thing to do with the question of
how to interpret "The apple in my basket is red."  That sentence
clearly implies there is one and only one apple in my basket

It does not. (x)[Bx -> (Rx & (y)(By -> y=x)] presupposes (Ex)Bx. But
that is a different issue.

I'm still not seeing your point in all of this. What is the
conclusion you want us to draw?
--
"They are anti-mathematicians, evil incarnate, dedicated to undermining
intellectual development in this area. If you never thought such
people could actually exist, outside of myths or legends, welcome to
the real world." --James S Harris on evil incarnate's Usenet presence
.

Loading