Talk:Problem of multiple generality

message: From a TL perspective, there's a problem with the proposition "Some cat is feared by every mouse" that has to be addressed before I can accept the objection with certainty. The proposition could be logically equivalent to 
"all mice are afraid of at least one cat"
or it could be equivalent to
"There exists a cat C such that every single mouse, without exception, is afraid of C."
i.e. there are ambiguous terms, which means that the proposition can't be used in a valid argument by the standards of TL. Is there any way to fix this ambiguity, and does the problem of multiple generalities remain if the ambiguity is removed?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.119.238 (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem with Ambiguous Terms

message: However, it is not possible to express this inference in the traditional system, because the manner we
 should represent the first term in the classical subject-predicate form, ensures that the second term 
 our predicate will be "X is feared by every mouse"
This isn't English - what is it supposed to mean? garik 11:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will edit the article to explain to the non-logician.  However, this very interesting stub badly needs references.  Will the author please provide them? Rick Norwood 14:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not so concerned about making it clearer to the non-logician - I think this would follow to some extent from making it clearer to English speakers.  The syntax is so peculiar I can only assume it wasn't written by a native speaker, or that there are words missing.  But yes, I suppose it could be made easier for non-logicians too. garik 14:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I see you've done a good job of it:) garik 15:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Not English

message: NORWOOD:
Your question 1 contains the phrase "to clearly express ambiguous statements". Since ambiguous = unclear, I'm not sure what that phrase (or its negation) could mean. 
The answer to your second question is that logic has come a long way since Frege. 
Rick Norwood 17:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are making too much of a simple misunderstanding.  I misunderstood what you meant by "to clearly express an ambiguous statement".  I agree with everything you say above. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms of 2 Rhetorical Questions 

message: Something major being where on earth is the consideration for the state where there are no cats AT ALL in existence anymore, yet they can still exist as a fear concept within the mouse, or is this something I am simply being too obtuse about and everyone would be thinking this as well? It seems to me that this point does not appear to be addressed? Which to me in turn underpins some vital misunderstanding or miscommunication of the idea of the 'problem with multiple generality' in the sense of getting to the root of whatever supposed flaws exist? BoredextraWorkvidid (talk) 09:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Am I going crazy or is the Cat example missing something major? 

message: The article text says:-
The syntax of traditional logic (TL) permits exactly four sentence types: "All As are Bs", "No As are Bs", "Some As are Bs" and "Some As are not Bs". Each type is a quantified sentence containing exactly one quantifier.
Looks like there are three quantifiers reading that, i.e. All, No, and Some. But "No A's are B's" can be written "All A's are not B's". So there are two quantifiers not three. Using the 'No' word is unnecessary since you have the 'not'. Why confuse the reader with redundant terms? John Middlemas (talk) 13:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The number of symbolic quantifiers can be reduced to two, as you say, and in symbolic logic that is usually done.  Whether that reduction will help the lay reader or not is another question.  Most people think in terms of "none", "some", and "all", and even though we can do without "none", I don't think including "none" is confusing.  A similar question arises in propositional logic.  We can do without the binary "AND" by replacing A AND B with NOT(NOT A OR NOT B), but is that less confusing that keeping a redundant connective? Rick Norwood (talk) 13:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundant 'No' 

message: I don't get the point of this article. Thats my view:
The example states in both sentences the same. One time in an passive form (feared by), one time in a active form (afraid of): 
I am feared by you.
You fear me.
(You are afraid of me.)
or
Some As are (by) Bs.
Bs are some As.
123qweasd (talk) 17:14, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  questioning this article