Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net>
Newsgroups: sci.math
Subject: =?UTF-8?B?UmU6IGJlY2F1c2UgZ+KkqChn4oG7wrkoeCkpID0gZyh5KSBbMS8yXSBS?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?e=3A_how?=
Date: Sun, 5 May 2024 18:02:27 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 62
Message-ID: <94ffd67c-271d-4518-8cf9-59dfe5921876@att.net>
References: <qHqKnNhkFFpow5Tl3Eiz12-8JEI@jntp>
 <499c4a7a-7fc7-4e4a-9b72-a7cd8affe271@att.net> <v0gv7o$3s84g$1@dont-email.me>
 <38955b31-7a34-4d2a-a3ec-32b8a66c0d7e@att.net> <v0ujej$3ecti$1@dont-email.me>
 <03af2426-92b1-47f9-b32f-3c6f61b40f0c@att.net> <v10n82$qkn$1@dont-email.me>
 <ce588a75-4ea6-4a78-8be2-d729e80d19cd@att.net>
 <AddHfbN-qz8pWaxRgIvS5xiFQw8@jntp>
 <d56cbcbb-3d26-4606-8572-366eaadc608f@att.net>
 <4P8mN6L4GiZRL_cw9VoFlkFRsyI@jntp>
 <0682ec96-856f-4659-918d-f4f08edada3e@att.net>
 <HlGdnSePy7HPTar7nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@giganews.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 06 May 2024 00:02:25 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="53db80068833060939c4d853c7392ea6";
	logging-data="2212163"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/PG/NuvOMoxdSy86EVHnzErVE3A883tBE="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:+v/YZgs7Hnx0VN+7nTyaAKZ6fiQ=
In-Reply-To: <HlGdnSePy7HPTar7nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3441

On 5/5/2024 2:30 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 05/05/2024 10:59 AM, Jim Burns wrote:

>> The meaning of (1.) depends upon
>> 'n' NOT being
>> the true name of any number which CAN be counted.to,
>> the way that "Rumpelstiltskin" is the true name of
>> a certain straw.into.gold.spinner.
>>
>> An analogy better than "name" is "pronoun"
>> 'n' is more like a pronoun than a name.
>> "It is a natural number", etc.
>>
>> Variable.names are a big improvement over pronouns
>> because, in every natural language I'm aware of,
>> there are no more than a handful of pronouns,
>> used with many handfuls of referents, and
>> their distinct referents are kept distinct
>> by context, AKA, figuring.it.out.
>> Even if the figuring.out doesn't fail, a lot of work.
>>
>> The expression
>> | x < y and y < z implies x < z
>> |
>> is a big improvement in clarity over
>> a paragraph of muddle with three pronouns.
>> x y z act like pronouns, though.

> How about disambiguating quantifiers so that
> something like the universal quantifier
> gets disambiguated to reflect
> a for-any/for-each/for-every/for-all
> when it's so that
> things like the Sorites/Heap or transfer principle
> apply.
>
> Similarly
> the existential quantifier is often to be disambiguated
> "exists", "exists-unique", "exists-plural",
> these kinds of things.
>
> English as a language has a rich variety of copulas.

I think that your wished.for supplements of
standard.issue quantifiers
can be defined given
standard.issue quantifiers.

For my wish,
I would like everyone to be clear on what
standard.issue quantifiers and variables
mean.

I think that,
way off in that glorious future,
both you and I will be able to be
satisfactorily understood.

And what more could there be
to wish for?