Re: "What I have for dinner depends on what there is in the fridge"

["Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>]

> >   What I have for dinner depends on what there is in the fridge.
>
>I think that 2nd-order logic does the trick:
>
>	Ef: Ex: Ey: fxy & I have x for dinner & y is in the fridge
>
>Or in words:
>
>	There is a relation between something and something else, such
>	that the former is what I have for dinner and the latter is
>	what is in the fridge.

This seems to claim more than the original in one respect,
and less in another.

The original doesn't say that there is anything in the
fridge, or that I have anything for dinner. It may
describe a situation where I have pizza for dinner
because there is nothing in the fridge, or where I
have nothing for dinner because there is only a rotten
tomato in the fridge, or even where I have nothing
for dinner because there is nothing in the fridge.

Also, "there is a relation" seems too weak. Even though
the original doesn't explain fully what is the relation
it does say that one event is the cause and the other
event is the consequence.

co'o mi'e xorxes