1

##### General Discussion / Re: Simon blogs

« Last post by**Simon**on

*»*

**Today**at 04:59:07 pmHah, no, I didn't have any birthdays recently. And yes, Indian food sounds nice, very spicy.

When I ever move out of this apartment, a long-term plan is to get a wok and learn to use that. Even today, most of my dishes work similar to wok dishes: Get vegetables, maybe get meat too, then cut everything to pieces. Fry everything together. Then make noodles/rice/couscous/... and serve both.

IchoTolot jokes that I say "When I ever move out of this apartment" far too often and I should finish on getting the thesis done for good. I believe I've already fixed all nasty bugs in the thesis.

Consider the following sentence from a logical point-of-view:

1. There exists an X such that X is a pope. (At least one pope exists.)

2. For all X and Y, if both X and Y are popes, then X = Y. (At most one pope exists.)

3. For all X such that X is a pope, X is male.

Then, "The pope is male." is equivalent to (1 and 2 and 3).

What happens when "the" refers to a plural? Consider:

Rewrite A.

1. For all X, if X is a frog, then X is green.

(No claim of existence.)

Rewrite B.

1. For all X, if X is a frog, then X is green.

2. There exists an X such that X is a frog. (At least 1 frog exists.)

Rewrite C.

1. For all X, if X is a frog, then X is green.

2. There exist X and Y such that X is a frog, Y is a frog, and X ≠ Y. (At least 2 frogs exist.)

I have a strong preference (which I will keep secret temporarily, to not bias anybody) but I doubt there is a universally accepted rewrite. Forestidia disagrees with my choice here and has a strong background in philosophical logic. The classical examples on the internet don't help either, Russell's essay is purely about the singular "the".

-- Simon

**Wok**When I ever move out of this apartment, a long-term plan is to get a wok and learn to use that. Even today, most of my dishes work similar to wok dishes: Get vegetables, maybe get meat too, then cut everything to pieces. Fry everything together. Then make noodles/rice/couscous/... and serve both.

IchoTolot jokes that I say "When I ever move out of this apartment" far too often and I should finish on getting the thesis done for good. I believe I've already fixed all nasty bugs in the thesis.

**The**Consider the following sentence from a logical point-of-view:

**The pope is male.**Since first-order logic has no "the", only "for all" and "there exists", we have to agree on how to translate the sentence into first-order logic. Commonly accepted, and suggested by, e.g., Russell's On Denoting and by Frege, is:1. There exists an X such that X is a pope. (At least one pope exists.)

2. For all X and Y, if both X and Y are popes, then X = Y. (At most one pope exists.)

3. For all X such that X is a pope, X is male.

Then, "The pope is male." is equivalent to (1 and 2 and 3).

What happens when "the" refers to a plural? Consider:

**The frogs are green.**Which of these rewrites to first-order logic are equivalent to "The frogs are green."?Rewrite A.

1. For all X, if X is a frog, then X is green.

(No claim of existence.)

Rewrite B.

1. For all X, if X is a frog, then X is green.

2. There exists an X such that X is a frog. (At least 1 frog exists.)

Rewrite C.

1. For all X, if X is a frog, then X is green.

2. There exist X and Y such that X is a frog, Y is a frog, and X ≠ Y. (At least 2 frogs exist.)

I have a strong preference (which I will keep secret temporarily, to not bias anybody) but I doubt there is a universally accepted rewrite. Forestidia disagrees with my choice here and has a strong background in philosophical logic. The classical examples on the internet don't help either, Russell's essay is purely about the singular "the".

-- Simon