WikiDiscuss

A> No, E is enough (it turns out in this case that this is also A, of course).
B> This does have to be A, otherwise this would be trivially true for any number greater than n.

c> The original was
"If da's were not singular, things like these would be false:

pa da broda ijo ge su'o de broda gi ro di poi broda cu du de
Exactly one thing1 is a broda iff some thing2 is a broda and
every thing3 that is a broda is that thing2."
So, assuming you are using "1x" in the usual way, not McKay's, what effect does these variable being plural have on the above. If more than one thing brodas then {pa da broda} is false in both cases and the second clause on the right is false as well. On the other hand, if there is only one broda then all three components come out true. Unless you mean "1x" in McKay's sense and you are right that that is only an "at least" claim (or, more accurately, a claim about the critters of interest without regard to what happens a zillion mile away or even here but out of focus). "There is I of broda and it is a monad just in case there is I of broda and every J of broda, J is among I and I among J" (that is, the two are identical and true if and only if I (and J) are monads). It is a bit harder to do for "2x" and on.

Jorge Llambías <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar> wrote:

> Nostalgia! Familiarity is a pain! When I saw the stock definition of "1 F
> is G," I did not pay any attention to it. But it is wrong for McKay's
> version, which is "EI: I is F I is G and I is 1 in number."

I was not giving McKay's version of anything. I was giving an example
of a sentence that is true with singular variables and false with
plural variables. Anyway, McKay's numeric quantifiers are not "exact",
so when he says 3X:FX it may be the case that more than three things
are F.

> The last
> clause is just "I is an individual" ("E J: J among I I among J")

A>I guess you mean "[A J: J among I] I among J".

> (the other
> numbers can be built on this inductively, given a defined "I is n in number,"
> "I is n+1 in number is just "EJ: J among I J is n in number & E K: K among
> I and K not among J K is 1 in number").

B>Yes.

> The nearest McKay comes to what you
> suggest is "the Fs that are G are one in number," where "the Fs that are G"
> is something like what you offer: "EI:I is F I is G & A J: J is F and G J
> among I" (or so).

C>What did I suggest?

All I did was give a sentence that is true with singular variables
and false with plural variables, I never even attempted to say
"exactly one thing is a broda" using plural variables.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com