... all what have a horn and no horn?? — bongo fury
Just to be absolutely clear, I am saying that since it is false that "No people are not dinosaurs." it must necessarily be true that at least one person is not a dinosaur. And thus that there are no people is incompatible with the given premise. — unenlightened
1) No people are not dinosaurs — Alexis Schaffer
Just to be absolutely clear, I am saying that since it is false that "No people are not dinosaurs." it must necessarily be true that at least one person is not a dinosaur. And thus that there are no people is incompatible with the given premise. — unenlightened
But the configuration of prefixes '~∀x~' figures so prominently in subsequent developments that it is convenient to adopt a condensed notation for it; the customary one is '∃x', which we may read 'there is something that'.
— Quine, Mathematical Logic — bongo fury
the argument itself does not grant people. — tim wood
if the false proposition were that no yurgs were not dinosaurs, then you're in the position of affirming the existence of yurgs. — tim wood
Yes? When was the last time you saw a yurg? The problem here is the movement from universal to existential to existence. I'm thinking there is agreement that an existential qualifier implies the existence of at least one. I also think that a universal qualifier does not imply the existence of any.Yes, being asked to deny the non-existence of yurgs of a certain type is being asked to affirm their existence, surely? — bongo fury
Yes? When was the last time you saw a yurg? — tim wood
No yurgs are green, or, all yurgs are blue, on the other hand, cannot be presumed to imply there are any yurgs. — tim wood
you would have them as proof of the existence of yurgs. — tim wood
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.