Received: from VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (vms.dc.lsoft.com [205.186.43.2]) by locke.ccil.org (8.6.9/8.6.10) with ESMTP id MAA09677 for ; Wed, 22 Nov 1995 12:23:05 -0500 Message-Id: <199511221723.MAA09677@locke.ccil.org> Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (205.186.43.4) by VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id A5F07F04 ; Wed, 22 Nov 1995 13:12:33 -0400 Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 12:09:59 -0500 Reply-To: Jorge Llambias Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: more on logical issues X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu, jorge@minerva.phyast.pitt.edu To: John Cowan Status: OR X-From-Space-Date: Wed Nov 22 12:23:09 1995 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU Steve Hazel: > > All even prime numbers greater than three are multiples of 27. > > Yes, indeed there are no even prime numbers greater than three. > > > >Is that really bad English? > > While the English syntax is not flawed, the logic may be. The basic question > here, I think, is whether or not it is logical to say that a nonexistant thing > or nonexistant things ("even prime numbers greater than three") can be given > properties ("are multiples of 27"). That's not really the point I want to make. The logical question is whether a universal quantification need have referents. If you say "nothing is an even prime number greater than three" you are not giving a property to "nothing", even though the English syntax would seem to suggest it. Similarly, if you say "all even prime numbers greater than three are multiples of 27" you are not giving a property to "all even prime numbers greater than three", simply because there are none. Jorge