In predicate logic, does existential quantification (∃) include universal quantification (∀), i.e. can 'some' imply 'all'?What exactly does 'Some' mean in Logic?Can someone clear up this semantic proof of quantification logic?A question about statements and conclusionWhat does the truth-value of a material implication represent?Are “All A is B” and “If A then B” always logically equivalent?Predicate Logic - Existential EliminationPredicate Logic - Universal IntroductionIs Ross' paradox really a paradox?Can classical logic have deduction with infinite stepsCan anyone tell which one of these sentences are materially implies(implication) and logically implies(implication)?Incorrect statement in Suppes' Introduction to Logic
Should I hang doors before or after drywall?
The work of mathematicians outside their professional environment
An example of a "regular poset" which does not belong to a convex polytope
How does Donald Trump manage to remain so popular over a rather long period of time?
How to tension rope between two trees?
How to get a smooth, uniform ParametricPlot of a 2D Region?
Can 35 mm film which went through a washing machine still be developed?
Does python reuse repeated calculation results?
Determine the Winner of a Game of Australian Football
In what sense is SL(2,q) "very far from abelian"?
Anonymous reviewer disclosed his identity. Should I thank him by name?
Should I be able to see patterns in a HS256 encoded JWT?
Calculate the price at time t=0
Using 4K Skyrim Textures when running 1920 x 1080 display resolution?
Tikz diagonal filling pattern
Would Great Old Ones care about the Blood War?
Coffee Grounds and Gritty Butter Cream Icing
How fast are we moving relative to the CMB?
What benefits are there to blocking most search engines?
Search for something difficult to count/estimate
Does the DOJ's declining to investigate the Trump-Zelensky call ruin the basis for impeachment?
How to catch creatures that can predict the next few minutes?
What are the limits on an impeached and not convicted president?
How to calculate Limit of this sequence
In predicate logic, does existential quantification (∃) include universal quantification (∀), i.e. can 'some' imply 'all'?
What exactly does 'Some' mean in Logic?Can someone clear up this semantic proof of quantification logic?A question about statements and conclusionWhat does the truth-value of a material implication represent?Are “All A is B” and “If A then B” always logically equivalent?Predicate Logic - Existential EliminationPredicate Logic - Universal IntroductionIs Ross' paradox really a paradox?Can classical logic have deduction with infinite stepsCan anyone tell which one of these sentences are materially implies(implication) and logically implies(implication)?Incorrect statement in Suppes' Introduction to Logic
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty
margin-bottom:0;
.everyonelovesstackoverflowposition:absolute;height:1px;width:1px;opacity:0;top:0;left:0;pointer-events:none;
I am having a discussion whether '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 we can validly derive this conclusion:
Not all reasonable people are criminal
logic quantification
edited Apr 23 at 8:57
Ryder
2,12712 silver badges30 bronze badges
asked Apr 16 at 18:59
6thsense6thsense
655 bronze badges
add a comment
|
I am having a discussion whether '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 we can validly derive this conclusion:
Not all reasonable people are criminal
logic quantification
edited Apr 23 at 8:57
Ryder
2,12712 silver badges30 bronze badges
asked Apr 16 at 18:59
6thsense6thsense
655 bronze badges
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
Apr 16 at 21:51
2
In natural language, "some" usually means "at least one, but not all". In formal language, ∃ means "at least one". if you drop the notion that ∃ means "some" and always only read ∃ as "there exists at least one", things clear up quickly. "Some" with the meaning of "at least one, but not all" is modeled not by ∃, but by ∃x ∧ ¬∀x.
– Polygnome
Apr 17 at 11:42
add a comment
|
I am having a discussion whether '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 we can validly derive this conclusion:
Not all reasonable people are criminal
logic quantification
edited Apr 23 at 8:57
Ryder
2,12712 silver badges30 bronze badges
asked Apr 16 at 18:59
6thsense6thsense
655 bronze badges
I am having a discussion whether '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 we can validly derive this conclusion:
Not all reasonable people are criminal
logic quantification
logic quantification
edited Apr 23 at 8:57
Ryder
2,12712 silver badges30 bronze badges
asked Apr 16 at 18:59
6thsense6thsense
655 bronze badges
edited Apr 23 at 8:57
Ryder
2,12712 silver badges30 bronze badges
asked Apr 16 at 18:59
6thsense6thsense
655 bronze badges
edited Apr 23 at 8:57
Ryder
2,12712 silver badges30 bronze badges
edited Apr 23 at 8:57
Ryder
2,12712 silver badges30 bronze badges
edited Apr 23 at 8:57
Ryder
2,12712 silver badges30 bronze badges
2,12712 silver badges30 bronze badges
asked Apr 16 at 18:59
6thsense6thsense
655 bronze badges
asked Apr 16 at 18:59
6thsense6thsense
655 bronze badges
asked Apr 16 at 18:59
6thsense6thsense
655 bronze badges
655 bronze badges
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
Apr 16 at 21:51
2
In natural language, "some" usually means "at least one, but not all". In formal language, ∃ means "at least one". if you drop the notion that ∃ means "some" and always only read ∃ as "there exists at least one", things clear up quickly. "Some" with the meaning of "at least one, but not all" is modeled not by ∃, but by ∃x ∧ ¬∀x.
– Polygnome
Apr 17 at 11:42
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
Apr 16 at 21:51
2
In natural language, "some" usually means "at least one, but not all". In formal language, ∃ means "at least one". if you drop the notion that ∃ means "some" and always only read ∃ as "there exists at least one", things clear up quickly. "Some" with the meaning of "at least one, but not all" is modeled not by ∃, but by ∃x ∧ ¬∀x.
– Polygnome
Apr 17 at 11:42
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
Apr 16 at 21:51
"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
Apr 16 at 21:51
2
2
In natural language, "some" usually means "at least one, but not all". In formal language, ∃ means "at least one". if you drop the notion that ∃ means "some" and always only read ∃ as "there exists at least one", things clear up quickly. "Some" with the meaning of "at least one, but not all" is modeled not by ∃, but by ∃x ∧ ¬∀x.
– Polygnome
Apr 17 at 11:42
In natural language, "some" usually means "at least one, but not all". In formal language, ∃ means "at least one". if you drop the notion that ∃ means "some" and always only read ∃ as "there exists at least one", things clear up quickly. "Some" with the meaning of "at least one, but not all" is modeled not by ∃, but by ∃x ∧ ¬∀x.
– Polygnome
Apr 17 at 11:42
add a comment
|
4 Answers
4
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.
Having said that, from "Some reasonable people are criminal" we cannot conclude by logic alone that "All reasonable people are criminal".
But we cannot exclude it either, i.e. we cannot state that "Not all reasonable people are criminal".
answered Apr 16 at 19:11
Mauro ALLEGRANZAMauro ALLEGRANZA
29.3k2 gold badges20 silver badges69 bronze badges
2
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
Apr 16 at 22:04
@FedericoPoloni - thnaks for your comment. I've highlighted the fact that the argument is not valid (and not the statement).
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Apr 17 at 6:17
@FedericoPoloni If you assume that "Some newspaper readers are criminal" conclusively means "less than all"; then there is at least one reader who is not criminal, at which point your conclusion is correct: at least one reader (and thus reasonable person) is not criminal, which means that not all reasonable people are criminal (since we know of at least one exception, the person who made you say "some" instead of "all"). However, in logic, "some" does not explicitly specify that it is definitely less than all. In everyday language it does, but not in logic.
– Flater
Apr 17 at 15:01
@FedericoPoloni [..] Which means that in logic, "Some newspaper readers are criminal" includes the possibility that all readers are criminal. And because this is a possibility, "Not all readers are criminal" is not provably true (it is false in the case where all readers happen to be criminals). And if that's not true, then "Not all reasonable people are criminal" can also not be provably true.
– Flater
Apr 17 at 15:05
@Flater I'm not sure I get your point. It looks like you are addressing another comment of mine, and you are trying to explain me how "some" is used in propositional logic vs everyday language. I am familiar with that; in my other comment I was simply pointing out that this subtlety is (in my view) the source of OP's confusion. What you write here should probably go inside an answer, then.
– Federico Poloni
Apr 17 at 15:39
|
show 4 more comments
Some newspaper readers are criminal
This means that at least one newspaper reader is a criminal. It can be more, it can even be all of them. We do not know. But at least one is.
All newspaper readers are reasonable people
All of the newspaper readers are reasonable people. Because at least one of the readers was a criminal, we must have one reasonable criminal.
Not all reasonable people are criminal
This is something we can't tell.
- We do not know how many of the reasonable readers are criminals. It could be all of them, or it could be just one.
- We only know that all newspaper readers are reasonable. But... there might also be other reasonable people who do not read newspapers. We do not have information about this.
So no, we can't tell if all reasonable people are criminals by this logic.
answered Apr 17 at 6:43
OpifexOpifex
1411 bronze badge
1
Welcome to Philosophy SE! We usually like to see references, for a variety of reasons, but a well formed argument, like this one, makes everybody happy.
– christo183
Apr 17 at 6:52
1
@christo183: Sorry, I'm new to SE in general. I also don't have any references. I had a course a few years ago which used proposition and predicate logic, so I wrote my answer purely based on what I remembered. (I also checked the other answers, which didn't actually include any references). Sorry if my answer was undesirable.
– Opifex
Apr 17 at 6:56
1
No problem, as long as your argument/answer is framed (as yours were) with obvious statements. For opinion and contentious facts we would require references. But in general references are nice for "further reading" purposes. Bottom line: your answer was quite good, a fact reflected by the relatively high number of upvotes... ;)
– christo183
Apr 17 at 8:46
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
1
If I understand correctly from OP's question, their doubts are in translating (2) into quantifiers. They have the doubt that (2), as is written, may mean "A proper subset/subclass of N(x) is R(x)", that is, there exists x, N(x) and C(x), and there exists x, N(x) and not C(x). That is the reason behind that 'some vs all' premise, and I think your answer (which is otherwise correct) should address that.
– Federico Poloni
Apr 17 at 6:31
add a comment
|
All newspaper readers are reasonable people.
Some newspaper readers are criminal.
... [Thus] Not all reasonable people are criminal
This syllogism is AIO in the third figure:
All N are R.
Some N are C.
Thus: Some R are not C.
The syllogism AIO-3 is invalid for two reasons. (1) A term (C) which is distributed in the conclusion is not distributed in the premise. (2) When the conclusion is negative, there must be exactly one negative premise. Here, both premises are positive.
answered Apr 18 at 0:44
Mark AndrewsMark Andrews
3,3372 gold badges10 silver badges29 bronze badges
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/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 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
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
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.
Having said that, from "Some reasonable people are criminal" we cannot conclude by logic alone that "All reasonable people are criminal".
But we cannot exclude it either, i.e. we cannot state that "Not all reasonable people are criminal".
answered Apr 16 at 19:11
Mauro ALLEGRANZAMauro ALLEGRANZA
29.3k2 gold badges20 silver badges69 bronze badges
2
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
Apr 16 at 22:04
@FedericoPoloni - thnaks for your comment. I've highlighted the fact that the argument is not valid (and not the statement).
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Apr 17 at 6:17
@FedericoPoloni If you assume that "Some newspaper readers are criminal" conclusively means "less than all"; then there is at least one reader who is not criminal, at which point your conclusion is correct: at least one reader (and thus reasonable person) is not criminal, which means that not all reasonable people are criminal (since we know of at least one exception, the person who made you say "some" instead of "all"). However, in logic, "some" does not explicitly specify that it is definitely less than all. In everyday language it does, but not in logic.
– Flater
Apr 17 at 15:01
@FedericoPoloni [..] Which means that in logic, "Some newspaper readers are criminal" includes the possibility that all readers are criminal. And because this is a possibility, "Not all readers are criminal" is not provably true (it is false in the case where all readers happen to be criminals). And if that's not true, then "Not all reasonable people are criminal" can also not be provably true.
– Flater
Apr 17 at 15:05
@Flater I'm not sure I get your point. It looks like you are addressing another comment of mine, and you are trying to explain me how "some" is used in propositional logic vs everyday language. I am familiar with that; in my other comment I was simply pointing out that this subtlety is (in my view) the source of OP's confusion. What you write here should probably go inside an answer, then.
– Federico Poloni
Apr 17 at 15:39
|
show 4 more comments
"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.
Having said that, from "Some reasonable people are criminal" we cannot conclude by logic alone that "All reasonable people are criminal".
But we cannot exclude it either, i.e. we cannot state that "Not all reasonable people are criminal".
answered Apr 16 at 19:11
Mauro ALLEGRANZAMauro ALLEGRANZA
29.3k2 gold badges20 silver badges69 bronze badges
2
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
Apr 16 at 22:04
@FedericoPoloni - thnaks for your comment. I've highlighted the fact that the argument is not valid (and not the statement).
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Apr 17 at 6:17
@FedericoPoloni If you assume that "Some newspaper readers are criminal" conclusively means "less than all"; then there is at least one reader who is not criminal, at which point your conclusion is correct: at least one reader (and thus reasonable person) is not criminal, which means that not all reasonable people are criminal (since we know of at least one exception, the person who made you say "some" instead of "all"). However, in logic, "some" does not explicitly specify that it is definitely less than all. In everyday language it does, but not in logic.
– Flater
Apr 17 at 15:01
@FedericoPoloni [..] Which means that in logic, "Some newspaper readers are criminal" includes the possibility that all readers are criminal. And because this is a possibility, "Not all readers are criminal" is not provably true (it is false in the case where all readers happen to be criminals). And if that's not true, then "Not all reasonable people are criminal" can also not be provably true.
– Flater
Apr 17 at 15:05
@Flater I'm not sure I get your point. It looks like you are addressing another comment of mine, and you are trying to explain me how "some" is used in propositional logic vs everyday language. I am familiar with that; in my other comment I was simply pointing out that this subtlety is (in my view) the source of OP's confusion. What you write here should probably go inside an answer, then.
– Federico Poloni
Apr 17 at 15:39
|
show 4 more comments
"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.
Having said that, from "Some reasonable people are criminal" we cannot conclude by logic alone that "All reasonable people are criminal".
But we cannot exclude it either, i.e. we cannot state that "Not all reasonable people are criminal".
answered Apr 16 at 19:11
Mauro ALLEGRANZAMauro ALLEGRANZA
29.3k2 gold badges20 silver badges69 bronze badges
"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.
Having said that, from "Some reasonable people are criminal" we cannot conclude by logic alone that "All reasonable people are criminal".
But we cannot exclude it either, i.e. we cannot state that "Not all reasonable people are criminal".
answered Apr 16 at 19:11
Mauro ALLEGRANZAMauro ALLEGRANZA
29.3k2 gold badges20 silver badges69 bronze badges
edited Apr 17 at 9:37
answered Apr 16 at 19:11
Mauro ALLEGRANZAMauro ALLEGRANZA
29.3k2 gold badges20 silver badges69 bronze badges
answered Apr 16 at 19:11
Mauro ALLEGRANZAMauro ALLEGRANZA
29.3k2 gold badges20 silver badges69 bronze badges
answered Apr 16 at 19:11
Mauro ALLEGRANZAMauro ALLEGRANZA
29.3k2 gold badges20 silver badges69 bronze badges
29.3k2 gold badges20 silver badges69 bronze badges
2
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
Apr 16 at 22:04
@FedericoPoloni - thnaks for your comment. I've highlighted the fact that the argument is not valid (and not the statement).
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Apr 17 at 6:17
@FedericoPoloni If you assume that "Some newspaper readers are criminal" conclusively means "less than all"; then there is at least one reader who is not criminal, at which point your conclusion is correct: at least one reader (and thus reasonable person) is not criminal, which means that not all reasonable people are criminal (since we know of at least one exception, the person who made you say "some" instead of "all"). However, in logic, "some" does not explicitly specify that it is definitely less than all. In everyday language it does, but not in logic.
– Flater
Apr 17 at 15:01
@FedericoPoloni [..] Which means that in logic, "Some newspaper readers are criminal" includes the possibility that all readers are criminal. And because this is a possibility, "Not all readers are criminal" is not provably true (it is false in the case where all readers happen to be criminals). And if that's not true, then "Not all reasonable people are criminal" can also not be provably true.
– Flater
Apr 17 at 15:05
@Flater I'm not sure I get your point. It looks like you are addressing another comment of mine, and you are trying to explain me how "some" is used in propositional logic vs everyday language. I am familiar with that; in my other comment I was simply pointing out that this subtlety is (in my view) the source of OP's confusion. What you write here should probably go inside an answer, then.
– Federico Poloni
Apr 17 at 15:39
|
show 4 more comments
2
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
Apr 16 at 22:04
@FedericoPoloni - thnaks for your comment. I've highlighted the fact that the argument is not valid (and not the statement).
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Apr 17 at 6:17
@FedericoPoloni If you assume that "Some newspaper readers are criminal" conclusively means "less than all"; then there is at least one reader who is not criminal, at which point your conclusion is correct: at least one reader (and thus reasonable person) is not criminal, which means that not all reasonable people are criminal (since we know of at least one exception, the person who made you say "some" instead of "all"). However, in logic, "some" does not explicitly specify that it is definitely less than all. In everyday language it does, but not in logic.
– Flater
Apr 17 at 15:01
@FedericoPoloni [..] Which means that in logic, "Some newspaper readers are criminal" includes the possibility that all readers are criminal. And because this is a possibility, "Not all readers are criminal" is not provably true (it is false in the case where all readers happen to be criminals). And if that's not true, then "Not all reasonable people are criminal" can also not be provably true.
– Flater
Apr 17 at 15:05
@Flater I'm not sure I get your point. It looks like you are addressing another comment of mine, and you are trying to explain me how "some" is used in propositional logic vs everyday language. I am familiar with that; in my other comment I was simply pointing out that this subtlety is (in my view) the source of OP's confusion. What you write here should probably go inside an answer, then.
– Federico Poloni
Apr 17 at 15:39
2
2
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
Apr 16 at 22:04
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
Apr 16 at 22:04
@FedericoPoloni - thnaks for your comment. I've highlighted the fact that the argument is not valid (and not the statement).
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Apr 17 at 6:17
@FedericoPoloni - thnaks for your comment. I've highlighted the fact that the argument is not valid (and not the statement).
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Apr 17 at 6:17
@FedericoPoloni If you assume that "Some newspaper readers are criminal" conclusively means "less than all"; then there is at least one reader who is not criminal, at which point your conclusion is correct: at least one reader (and thus reasonable person) is not criminal, which means that not all reasonable people are criminal (since we know of at least one exception, the person who made you say "some" instead of "all"). However, in logic, "some" does not explicitly specify that it is definitely less than all. In everyday language it does, but not in logic.
– Flater
Apr 17 at 15:01
@FedericoPoloni If you assume that "Some newspaper readers are criminal" conclusively means "less than all"; then there is at least one reader who is not criminal, at which point your conclusion is correct: at least one reader (and thus reasonable person) is not criminal, which means that not all reasonable people are criminal (since we know of at least one exception, the person who made you say "some" instead of "all"). However, in logic, "some" does not explicitly specify that it is definitely less than all. In everyday language it does, but not in logic.
– Flater
Apr 17 at 15:01
@FedericoPoloni [..] Which means that in logic, "Some newspaper readers are criminal" includes the possibility that all readers are criminal. And because this is a possibility, "Not all readers are criminal" is not provably true (it is false in the case where all readers happen to be criminals). And if that's not true, then "Not all reasonable people are criminal" can also not be provably true.
– Flater
Apr 17 at 15:05
@FedericoPoloni [..] Which means that in logic, "Some newspaper readers are criminal" includes the possibility that all readers are criminal. And because this is a possibility, "Not all readers are criminal" is not provably true (it is false in the case where all readers happen to be criminals). And if that's not true, then "Not all reasonable people are criminal" can also not be provably true.
– Flater
Apr 17 at 15:05
@Flater I'm not sure I get your point. It looks like you are addressing another comment of mine, and you are trying to explain me how "some" is used in propositional logic vs everyday language. I am familiar with that; in my other comment I was simply pointing out that this subtlety is (in my view) the source of OP's confusion. What you write here should probably go inside an answer, then.
– Federico Poloni
Apr 17 at 15:39
@Flater I'm not sure I get your point. It looks like you are addressing another comment of mine, and you are trying to explain me how "some" is used in propositional logic vs everyday language. I am familiar with that; in my other comment I was simply pointing out that this subtlety is (in my view) the source of OP's confusion. What you write here should probably go inside an answer, then.
– Federico Poloni
Apr 17 at 15:39
|
show 4 more comments
Some newspaper readers are criminal
This means that at least one newspaper reader is a criminal. It can be more, it can even be all of them. We do not know. But at least one is.
All newspaper readers are reasonable people
All of the newspaper readers are reasonable people. Because at least one of the readers was a criminal, we must have one reasonable criminal.
Not all reasonable people are criminal
This is something we can't tell.
- We do not know how many of the reasonable readers are criminals. It could be all of them, or it could be just one.
- We only know that all newspaper readers are reasonable. But... there might also be other reasonable people who do not read newspapers. We do not have information about this.
So no, we can't tell if all reasonable people are criminals by this logic.
answered Apr 17 at 6:43
OpifexOpifex
1411 bronze badge
1
Welcome to Philosophy SE! We usually like to see references, for a variety of reasons, but a well formed argument, like this one, makes everybody happy.
– christo183
Apr 17 at 6:52
1
@christo183: Sorry, I'm new to SE in general. I also don't have any references. I had a course a few years ago which used proposition and predicate logic, so I wrote my answer purely based on what I remembered. (I also checked the other answers, which didn't actually include any references). Sorry if my answer was undesirable.
– Opifex
Apr 17 at 6:56
1
No problem, as long as your argument/answer is framed (as yours were) with obvious statements. For opinion and contentious facts we would require references. But in general references are nice for "further reading" purposes. Bottom line: your answer was quite good, a fact reflected by the relatively high number of upvotes... ;)
– christo183
Apr 17 at 8:46
add a comment
|
Some newspaper readers are criminal
This means that at least one newspaper reader is a criminal. It can be more, it can even be all of them. We do not know. But at least one is.
All newspaper readers are reasonable people
All of the newspaper readers are reasonable people. Because at least one of the readers was a criminal, we must have one reasonable criminal.
Not all reasonable people are criminal
This is something we can't tell.
- We do not know how many of the reasonable readers are criminals. It could be all of them, or it could be just one.
- We only know that all newspaper readers are reasonable. But... there might also be other reasonable people who do not read newspapers. We do not have information about this.
So no, we can't tell if all reasonable people are criminals by this logic.
answered Apr 17 at 6:43
OpifexOpifex
1411 bronze badge
1
Welcome to Philosophy SE! We usually like to see references, for a variety of reasons, but a well formed argument, like this one, makes everybody happy.
– christo183
Apr 17 at 6:52
1
@christo183: Sorry, I'm new to SE in general. I also don't have any references. I had a course a few years ago which used proposition and predicate logic, so I wrote my answer purely based on what I remembered. (I also checked the other answers, which didn't actually include any references). Sorry if my answer was undesirable.
– Opifex
Apr 17 at 6:56
1
No problem, as long as your argument/answer is framed (as yours were) with obvious statements. For opinion and contentious facts we would require references. But in general references are nice for "further reading" purposes. Bottom line: your answer was quite good, a fact reflected by the relatively high number of upvotes... ;)
– christo183
Apr 17 at 8:46
add a comment
|
Some newspaper readers are criminal
This means that at least one newspaper reader is a criminal. It can be more, it can even be all of them. We do not know. But at least one is.
All newspaper readers are reasonable people
All of the newspaper readers are reasonable people. Because at least one of the readers was a criminal, we must have one reasonable criminal.
Not all reasonable people are criminal
This is something we can't tell.
- We do not know how many of the reasonable readers are criminals. It could be all of them, or it could be just one.
- We only know that all newspaper readers are reasonable. But... there might also be other reasonable people who do not read newspapers. We do not have information about this.
So no, we can't tell if all reasonable people are criminals by this logic.
answered Apr 17 at 6:43
OpifexOpifex
1411 bronze badge
Some newspaper readers are criminal
This means that at least one newspaper reader is a criminal. It can be more, it can even be all of them. We do not know. But at least one is.
All newspaper readers are reasonable people
All of the newspaper readers are reasonable people. Because at least one of the readers was a criminal, we must have one reasonable criminal.
Not all reasonable people are criminal
This is something we can't tell.
- We do not know how many of the reasonable readers are criminals. It could be all of them, or it could be just one.
- We only know that all newspaper readers are reasonable. But... there might also be other reasonable people who do not read newspapers. We do not have information about this.
So no, we can't tell if all reasonable people are criminals by this logic.
answered Apr 17 at 6:43
OpifexOpifex
1411 bronze badge
answered Apr 17 at 6:43
OpifexOpifex
1411 bronze badge
answered Apr 17 at 6:43
OpifexOpifex
1411 bronze badge
answered Apr 17 at 6:43
OpifexOpifex
1411 bronze badge
1411 bronze badge
1
Welcome to Philosophy SE! We usually like to see references, for a variety of reasons, but a well formed argument, like this one, makes everybody happy.
– christo183
Apr 17 at 6:52
1
@christo183: Sorry, I'm new to SE in general. I also don't have any references. I had a course a few years ago which used proposition and predicate logic, so I wrote my answer purely based on what I remembered. (I also checked the other answers, which didn't actually include any references). Sorry if my answer was undesirable.
– Opifex
Apr 17 at 6:56
1
No problem, as long as your argument/answer is framed (as yours were) with obvious statements. For opinion and contentious facts we would require references. But in general references are nice for "further reading" purposes. Bottom line: your answer was quite good, a fact reflected by the relatively high number of upvotes... ;)
– christo183
Apr 17 at 8:46
add a comment
|
1
Welcome to Philosophy SE! We usually like to see references, for a variety of reasons, but a well formed argument, like this one, makes everybody happy.
– christo183
Apr 17 at 6:52
1
@christo183: Sorry, I'm new to SE in general. I also don't have any references. I had a course a few years ago which used proposition and predicate logic, so I wrote my answer purely based on what I remembered. (I also checked the other answers, which didn't actually include any references). Sorry if my answer was undesirable.
– Opifex
Apr 17 at 6:56
1
No problem, as long as your argument/answer is framed (as yours were) with obvious statements. For opinion and contentious facts we would require references. But in general references are nice for "further reading" purposes. Bottom line: your answer was quite good, a fact reflected by the relatively high number of upvotes... ;)
– christo183
Apr 17 at 8:46
1
1
Welcome to Philosophy SE! We usually like to see references, for a variety of reasons, but a well formed argument, like this one, makes everybody happy.
– christo183
Apr 17 at 6:52
Welcome to Philosophy SE! We usually like to see references, for a variety of reasons, but a well formed argument, like this one, makes everybody happy.
– christo183
Apr 17 at 6:52
1
1
@christo183: Sorry, I'm new to SE in general. I also don't have any references. I had a course a few years ago which used proposition and predicate logic, so I wrote my answer purely based on what I remembered. (I also checked the other answers, which didn't actually include any references). Sorry if my answer was undesirable.
– Opifex
Apr 17 at 6:56
@christo183: Sorry, I'm new to SE in general. I also don't have any references. I had a course a few years ago which used proposition and predicate logic, so I wrote my answer purely based on what I remembered. (I also checked the other answers, which didn't actually include any references). Sorry if my answer was undesirable.
– Opifex
Apr 17 at 6:56
1
1
No problem, as long as your argument/answer is framed (as yours were) with obvious statements. For opinion and contentious facts we would require references. But in general references are nice for "further reading" purposes. Bottom line: your answer was quite good, a fact reflected by the relatively high number of upvotes... ;)
– christo183
Apr 17 at 8:46
No problem, as long as your argument/answer is framed (as yours were) with obvious statements. For opinion and contentious facts we would require references. But in general references are nice for "further reading" purposes. Bottom line: your answer was quite good, a fact reflected by the relatively high number of upvotes... ;)
– christo183
Apr 17 at 8:46
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
1
If I understand correctly from OP's question, their doubts are in translating (2) into quantifiers. They have the doubt that (2), as is written, may mean "A proper subset/subclass of N(x) is R(x)", that is, there exists x, N(x) and C(x), and there exists x, N(x) and not C(x). That is the reason behind that 'some vs all' premise, and I think your answer (which is otherwise correct) should address that.
– Federico Poloni
Apr 17 at 6:31
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
1
If I understand correctly from OP's question, their doubts are in translating (2) into quantifiers. They have the doubt that (2), as is written, may mean "A proper subset/subclass of N(x) is R(x)", that is, there exists x, N(x) and C(x), and there exists x, N(x) and not C(x). That is the reason behind that 'some vs all' premise, and I think your answer (which is otherwise correct) should address that.
– Federico Poloni
Apr 17 at 6:31
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
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 Apr 16 at 19:10
user35066
1
If I understand correctly from OP's question, their doubts are in translating (2) into quantifiers. They have the doubt that (2), as is written, may mean "A proper subset/subclass of N(x) is R(x)", that is, there exists x, N(x) and C(x), and there exists x, N(x) and not C(x). That is the reason behind that 'some vs all' premise, and I think your answer (which is otherwise correct) should address that.
– Federico Poloni
Apr 17 at 6:31
add a comment
|
1
If I understand correctly from OP's question, their doubts are in translating (2) into quantifiers. They have the doubt that (2), as is written, may mean "A proper subset/subclass of N(x) is R(x)", that is, there exists x, N(x) and C(x), and there exists x, N(x) and not C(x). That is the reason behind that 'some vs all' premise, and I think your answer (which is otherwise correct) should address that.
– Federico Poloni
Apr 17 at 6:31
1
1
If I understand correctly from OP's question, their doubts are in translating (2) into quantifiers. They have the doubt that (2), as is written, may mean "A proper subset/subclass of N(x) is R(x)", that is, there exists x, N(x) and C(x), and there exists x, N(x) and not C(x). That is the reason behind that 'some vs all' premise, and I think your answer (which is otherwise correct) should address that.
– Federico Poloni
Apr 17 at 6:31
If I understand correctly from OP's question, their doubts are in translating (2) into quantifiers. They have the doubt that (2), as is written, may mean "A proper subset/subclass of N(x) is R(x)", that is, there exists x, N(x) and C(x), and there exists x, N(x) and not C(x). That is the reason behind that 'some vs all' premise, and I think your answer (which is otherwise correct) should address that.
– Federico Poloni
Apr 17 at 6:31
add a comment
|
All newspaper readers are reasonable people.
Some newspaper readers are criminal.
... [Thus] Not all reasonable people are criminal
This syllogism is AIO in the third figure:
All N are R.
Some N are C.
Thus: Some R are not C.
The syllogism AIO-3 is invalid for two reasons. (1) A term (C) which is distributed in the conclusion is not distributed in the premise. (2) When the conclusion is negative, there must be exactly one negative premise. Here, both premises are positive.
answered Apr 18 at 0:44
Mark AndrewsMark Andrews
3,3372 gold badges10 silver badges29 bronze badges
add a comment
|
All newspaper readers are reasonable people.
Some newspaper readers are criminal.
... [Thus] Not all reasonable people are criminal
This syllogism is AIO in the third figure:
All N are R.
Some N are C.
Thus: Some R are not C.
The syllogism AIO-3 is invalid for two reasons. (1) A term (C) which is distributed in the conclusion is not distributed in the premise. (2) When the conclusion is negative, there must be exactly one negative premise. Here, both premises are positive.
answered Apr 18 at 0:44
Mark AndrewsMark Andrews
3,3372 gold badges10 silver badges29 bronze badges
add a comment
|
All newspaper readers are reasonable people.
Some newspaper readers are criminal.
... [Thus] Not all reasonable people are criminal
This syllogism is AIO in the third figure:
All N are R.
Some N are C.
Thus: Some R are not C.
The syllogism AIO-3 is invalid for two reasons. (1) A term (C) which is distributed in the conclusion is not distributed in the premise. (2) When the conclusion is negative, there must be exactly one negative premise. Here, both premises are positive.
answered Apr 18 at 0:44
Mark AndrewsMark Andrews
3,3372 gold badges10 silver badges29 bronze badges
All newspaper readers are reasonable people.
Some newspaper readers are criminal.
... [Thus] Not all reasonable people are criminal
This syllogism is AIO in the third figure:
All N are R.
Some N are C.
Thus: Some R are not C.
The syllogism AIO-3 is invalid for two reasons. (1) A term (C) which is distributed in the conclusion is not distributed in the premise. (2) When the conclusion is negative, there must be exactly one negative premise. Here, both premises are positive.
answered Apr 18 at 0:44
Mark AndrewsMark Andrews
3,3372 gold badges10 silver badges29 bronze badges
answered Apr 18 at 0:44
Mark AndrewsMark Andrews
3,3372 gold badges10 silver badges29 bronze badges
answered Apr 18 at 0:44
Mark AndrewsMark Andrews
3,3372 gold badges10 silver badges29 bronze badges
answered Apr 18 at 0:44
Mark AndrewsMark Andrews
3,3372 gold badges10 silver badges29 bronze badges
3,3372 gold badges10 silver badges29 bronze badges
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
Apr 16 at 21:51
2
In natural language, "some" usually means "at least one, but not all". In formal language, ∃ means "at least one". if you drop the notion that ∃ means "some" and always only read ∃ as "there exists at least one", things clear up quickly. "Some" with the meaning of "at least one, but not all" is modeled not by ∃, but by ∃x ∧ ¬∀x.
– Polygnome
Apr 17 at 11:42