From pycyn@aol.com Sun Mar 03 17:32:10 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 4 Mar 2002 01:32:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 86451 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2002 01:32:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 4 Mar 2002 01:32:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r01.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.97) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 4 Mar 2002 01:32:07 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id r.17a.47fb731 (4539) for ; Sun, 3 Mar 2002 20:32:03 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <17a.47fb731.29b42892@aol.com> Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 20:32:02 EST Subject: Re: [jboske] Quantifiers, Existential Import, and all that stuff To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_17a.47fb731.29b42892_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 118 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 13501 --part1_17a.47fb731.29b42892_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/3/2002 2:57:20 PM Central Standard Time, edward@webforhumans.com writes: > Each object that is not identical with itself... > Any object that is not identical with itself... > Every object that is not identical with itself... > All objects that are not identical with themselves... > > Nope, no existential import in sight in MY ontology. I get the > membership of the empty set in each case, and accordingly in "all > universally quantified statements where the quantifier has > existential import." A false statement implies anything, and so all > members of the empty set have any property you care to name. > Putting a generous interpretation on your remarks, I take it that you think all universals have their subject term in the antecedent of a conditional and are therefore true whenever nothing fits that subject term. A fairly large group of people (I think Zeno Vendler wrote a paper on this once that may be substantially in the Encyclopedia of Philosophy) even since the free quantifier became the norm have held that a sentence starting "each member of the empty set..." was ipso facto false, ditto for "every," but not for "any" and "all." Even if we have brainwashed most folk (not likely, I think), the long tradition in logic deserves some attention in a logical language. And notice that what makes your interpretation work is not the quantifier, but the conditional. And we ought to be able in Lojban to match anything they say. --part1_17a.47fb731.29b42892_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/3/2002 2:57:20 PM Central Standard Time, edward@webforhumans.com writes:


Each object that is not identical with itself...
Any object that is not identical with itself...
Every object that is not identical with itself...
All objects that are not identical with themselves...

Nope, no existential import in sight in MY ontology. I get the
membership of the empty set in each case, and accordingly in "all
universally quantified statements where the quantifier has
existential import." A false statement implies anything, and so all
members of the empty set have any property you care to name.


Putting a generous interpretation on your remarks, I take it that you think all universals have their subject term in the antecedent of a conditional and are therefore true whenever nothing fits that subject term.  A fairly large group of people (I think Zeno Vendler wrote a paper on this once that may be substantially in the Encyclopedia of Philosophy) even since the free quantifier became the norm have held that a sentence starting "each member of the empty set..." was ipso facto false, ditto for "every," but not for "any" and "all."   Even if we have brainwashed most folk (not likely, I think), the long tradition in logic deserves some attention in a logical language.  And notice that what makes your interpretation work is not the quantifier, but the conditional.

<I believe that some Lojbanists have severely overinterpreted English
semantics. English is ambiguous, and is used in quite different ways
by different speakers and writers.>

And we ought to be able in Lojban to match anything they say.

 --part1_17a.47fb731.29b42892_boundary--