In predicate logic, does existential quantification (∃) include universal quantification (∀), i.e. can 'some' imply 'all'? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern) Which kinds of Philosophy.SE questions should be taken from (or tolerated in)…What exactly does 'Some' mean in Logic?Can someone clear up this semantic proof of quantification logic?How is First Order Logic complete but not decidable?A question about statements and conclusionWhat does the truth-value of a material implication represent?Why is this Statement correct: G implies ¬Contradiction?Russell's Paradox and the Law of Non-ContradictionIf an argument can be valid in one logical system, but invalid in another, are logical arguments “meaningful”?Predicate Logic - Existential EliminationPredicate Logic - Universal IntroductionIs Ross' paradox really a paradox?
ListPlot join points by nearest neighbor rather than order
Is it ethical to give a final exam after the professor has quit before teaching the remaining chapters of the course?
What would be the ideal power source for a cybernetic eye?
List *all* the tuples!
Denied boarding although I have proper visa and documentation. To whom should I make a complaint?
How to find out what spells would be useless to a blind NPC spellcaster?
Why did the Falcon Heavy center core fall off the ASDS OCISLY barge?
How to find all the available tools in mac terminal?
Do I really need recursive chmod to restrict access to a folder?
What is the logic behind the Maharil's explanation of why we don't say שעשה ניסים on Pesach?
Why do we bend a book to keep it straight?
Should I use a zero-interest credit card for a large one-time purchase?
What is a non-alternating simple group with big order, but relatively few conjugacy classes?
When do you get frequent flier miles - when you buy, or when you fly?
How do I keep my slimes from escaping their pens?
Storing hydrofluoric acid before the invention of plastics
What does this icon in iOS Stardew Valley mean?
Error "illegal generic type for instanceof" when using local classes
The logistics of corpse disposal
Why are there no cargo aircraft with "flying wing" design?
How to tell that you are a giant?
Withdrew £2800, but only £2000 shows as withdrawn on online banking; what are my obligations?
How to answer "Have you ever been terminated?"
If a contract sometimes uses the wrong name, is it still valid?
In predicate logic, does existential quantification (∃) include universal quantification (∀), i.e. can 'some' imply 'all'?
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)
Which kinds of Philosophy.SE questions should be taken from (or tolerated in)…What exactly does 'Some' mean in Logic?Can someone clear up this semantic proof of quantification logic?How is First Order Logic complete but not decidable?A question about statements and conclusionWhat does the truth-value of a material implication represent?Why is this Statement correct: G implies ¬Contradiction?Russell's Paradox and the Law of Non-ContradictionIf an argument can be valid in one logical system, but invalid in another, are logical arguments “meaningful”?Predicate Logic - Existential EliminationPredicate Logic - Universal IntroductionIs Ross' paradox really a paradox?
I am having a discussion wether 'some' can also imply 'all'. The definition for some, 'an unspecified number or amount of people or things' seems to leave room for this interpretation.
Discussion follows on the following statements:
1. All newspaper readers are reasonable people.
2. Some newspaper readers are criminal.
The question is whether or not the statement:
Not all reasonable people are criminal
Is valid...
logic quantification
edited 8 hours ago
Eliran
4,90231433
asked 8 hours ago
6thsense6thsense
504
add a comment |
I am having a discussion wether 'some' can also imply 'all'. The definition for some, 'an unspecified number or amount of people or things' seems to leave room for this interpretation.
Discussion follows on the following statements:
1. All newspaper readers are reasonable people.
2. Some newspaper readers are criminal.
The question is whether or not the statement:
Not all reasonable people are criminal
Is valid...
logic quantification
edited 8 hours ago
Eliran
4,90231433
asked 8 hours ago
6thsense6thsense
504
1
"seems to leave room for this interpretation." How so? "Is valid..." I take it you are asking whether the claims follows, rather than whether it is valid?
– Acccumulation
6 hours ago
add a comment |
I am having a discussion wether 'some' can also imply 'all'. The definition for some, 'an unspecified number or amount of people or things' seems to leave room for this interpretation.
Discussion follows on the following statements:
1. All newspaper readers are reasonable people.
2. Some newspaper readers are criminal.
The question is whether or not the statement:
Not all reasonable people are criminal
Is valid...
logic quantification
edited 8 hours ago
Eliran
4,90231433
asked 8 hours ago
6thsense6thsense
504
I am having a discussion wether 'some' can also imply 'all'. The definition for some, 'an unspecified number or amount of people or things' seems to leave room for this interpretation.
Discussion follows on the following statements:
1. All newspaper readers are reasonable people.
2. Some newspaper readers are criminal.
The question is whether or not the statement:
Not all reasonable people are criminal
Is valid...
logic quantification
logic quantification
edited 8 hours ago
Eliran
4,90231433
asked 8 hours ago
6thsense6thsense
504
edited 8 hours ago
Eliran
4,90231433
asked 8 hours ago
6thsense6thsense
504
edited 8 hours ago
Eliran
4,90231433
edited 8 hours ago
Eliran
4,90231433
edited 8 hours ago
Eliran
4,90231433
4,90231433
asked 8 hours ago
6thsense6thsense
504
asked 8 hours ago
6thsense6thsense
504
asked 8 hours ago
6thsense6thsense
504
504
1
"seems to leave room for this interpretation." How so? "Is valid..." I take it you are asking whether the claims follows, rather than whether it is valid?
– Acccumulation
6 hours ago
add a comment |
1
"seems to leave room for this interpretation." How so? "Is valid..." I take it you are asking whether the claims follows, rather than whether it is valid?
– Acccumulation
6 hours ago
1
1
"seems to leave room for this interpretation." How so? "Is valid..." I take it you are asking whether the claims follows, rather than whether it is valid?
– Acccumulation
6 hours ago
"seems to leave room for this interpretation." How so? "Is valid..." I take it you are asking whether the claims follows, rather than whether it is valid?
– Acccumulation
6 hours ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
"Some" does not exclude "all", but you cannot deduce "all" from "some".
Having said that, the above argument is not valid.
From premises 1 and 2 we can derive :
Some reasonable people are criminal
that is equivalent to : Not all reasonable people are not criminal.
answered 8 hours ago
Mauro ALLEGRANZAMauro ALLEGRANZA
29.8k22065
I'm not sure why this answer has been upvoted and accepted, because it doesn't work. The fact that you can prove a certain statement B from the premises does not imply anything on the validity (and provability) of statement A.
– Federico Poloni
5 hours ago
add a comment |
Rewrite the phrases in a more formal-like manner as
1. For all x, N(x) implies R(x)
2. There exists x, N(x) and C(x)
And notice these do imply there are reasonable criminals, ie,
There exists x, R(x) and C(x)
Now, "Not all reasonable people are criminal" would be
Not for all x, R(x) implies C(x)
which is (classically) equivalent to
There exists x, R(x) and not C(x)
But it's easy to see one can construct a model with a single individual possessing the three predicates N, R and C, which satisfies the first three phrases, but not the last two
answered 8 hours ago
alkchfalkchf
2093
New contributor
alkchf is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "265"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphilosophy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f61879%2fin-predicate-logic-does-existential-quantification-%25e2%2588%2583-include-universal-quanti%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
"Some" does not exclude "all", but you cannot deduce "all" from "some".
Having said that, the above argument is not valid.
From premises 1 and 2 we can derive :
Some reasonable people are criminal
that is equivalent to : Not all reasonable people are not criminal.
answered 8 hours ago
Mauro ALLEGRANZAMauro ALLEGRANZA
29.8k22065
I'm not sure why this answer has been upvoted and accepted, because it doesn't work. The fact that you can prove a certain statement B from the premises does not imply anything on the validity (and provability) of statement A.
– Federico Poloni
5 hours ago
add a comment |
"Some" does not exclude "all", but you cannot deduce "all" from "some".
Having said that, the above argument is not valid.
From premises 1 and 2 we can derive :
Some reasonable people are criminal
that is equivalent to : Not all reasonable people are not criminal.
answered 8 hours ago
Mauro ALLEGRANZAMauro ALLEGRANZA
29.8k22065
I'm not sure why this answer has been upvoted and accepted, because it doesn't work. The fact that you can prove a certain statement B from the premises does not imply anything on the validity (and provability) of statement A.
– Federico Poloni
5 hours ago
add a comment |
"Some" does not exclude "all", but you cannot deduce "all" from "some".
Having said that, the above argument is not valid.
From premises 1 and 2 we can derive :
Some reasonable people are criminal
that is equivalent to : Not all reasonable people are not criminal.
answered 8 hours ago
Mauro ALLEGRANZAMauro ALLEGRANZA
29.8k22065
"Some" does not exclude "all", but you cannot deduce "all" from "some".
Having said that, the above argument is not valid.
From premises 1 and 2 we can derive :
Some reasonable people are criminal
that is equivalent to : Not all reasonable people are not criminal.
answered 8 hours ago
Mauro ALLEGRANZAMauro ALLEGRANZA
29.8k22065
answered 8 hours ago
Mauro ALLEGRANZAMauro ALLEGRANZA
29.8k22065
answered 8 hours ago
Mauro ALLEGRANZAMauro ALLEGRANZA
29.8k22065
answered 8 hours ago
Mauro ALLEGRANZAMauro ALLEGRANZA
29.8k22065
29.8k22065
I'm not sure why this answer has been upvoted and accepted, because it doesn't work. The fact that you can prove a certain statement B from the premises does not imply anything on the validity (and provability) of statement A.
– Federico Poloni
5 hours ago
add a comment |
I'm not sure why this answer has been upvoted and accepted, because it doesn't work. The fact that you can prove a certain statement B from the premises does not imply anything on the validity (and provability) of statement A.
– Federico Poloni
5 hours ago
I'm not sure why this answer has been upvoted and accepted, because it doesn't work. The fact that you can prove a certain statement B from the premises does not imply anything on the validity (and provability) of statement A.
– Federico Poloni
5 hours ago
I'm not sure why this answer has been upvoted and accepted, because it doesn't work. The fact that you can prove a certain statement B from the premises does not imply anything on the validity (and provability) of statement A.
– Federico Poloni
5 hours ago
add a comment |
Rewrite the phrases in a more formal-like manner as
1. For all x, N(x) implies R(x)
2. There exists x, N(x) and C(x)
And notice these do imply there are reasonable criminals, ie,
There exists x, R(x) and C(x)
Now, "Not all reasonable people are criminal" would be
Not for all x, R(x) implies C(x)
which is (classically) equivalent to
There exists x, R(x) and not C(x)
But it's easy to see one can construct a model with a single individual possessing the three predicates N, R and C, which satisfies the first three phrases, but not the last two
answered 8 hours ago
alkchfalkchf
2093
New contributor
alkchf is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
Rewrite the phrases in a more formal-like manner as
1. For all x, N(x) implies R(x)
2. There exists x, N(x) and C(x)
And notice these do imply there are reasonable criminals, ie,
There exists x, R(x) and C(x)
Now, "Not all reasonable people are criminal" would be
Not for all x, R(x) implies C(x)
which is (classically) equivalent to
There exists x, R(x) and not C(x)
But it's easy to see one can construct a model with a single individual possessing the three predicates N, R and C, which satisfies the first three phrases, but not the last two
answered 8 hours ago
alkchfalkchf
2093
New contributor
alkchf is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
Rewrite the phrases in a more formal-like manner as
1. For all x, N(x) implies R(x)
2. There exists x, N(x) and C(x)
And notice these do imply there are reasonable criminals, ie,
There exists x, R(x) and C(x)
Now, "Not all reasonable people are criminal" would be
Not for all x, R(x) implies C(x)
which is (classically) equivalent to
There exists x, R(x) and not C(x)
But it's easy to see one can construct a model with a single individual possessing the three predicates N, R and C, which satisfies the first three phrases, but not the last two
answered 8 hours ago
alkchfalkchf
2093
New contributor
alkchf is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Rewrite the phrases in a more formal-like manner as
1. For all x, N(x) implies R(x)
2. There exists x, N(x) and C(x)
And notice these do imply there are reasonable criminals, ie,
There exists x, R(x) and C(x)
Now, "Not all reasonable people are criminal" would be
Not for all x, R(x) implies C(x)
which is (classically) equivalent to
There exists x, R(x) and not C(x)
But it's easy to see one can construct a model with a single individual possessing the three predicates N, R and C, which satisfies the first three phrases, but not the last two
answered 8 hours ago
alkchfalkchf
2093
New contributor
alkchf is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 8 hours ago
alkchfalkchf
2093
New contributor
alkchf is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 8 hours ago
alkchfalkchf
2093
answered 8 hours ago
alkchfalkchf
2093
2093
New contributor
alkchf is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
alkchf is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
alkchf is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Philosophy Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphilosophy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f61879%2fin-predicate-logic-does-existential-quantification-%25e2%2588%2583-include-universal-quanti%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
"seems to leave room for this interpretation." How so? "Is valid..." I take it you are asking whether the claims follows, rather than whether it is valid?
– Acccumulation
6 hours ago