tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8137988136860941398.post8932597139120033481..comments2024-03-10T05:02:00.377-07:00Comments on Sprachlogik: Modern Quantificational Logic Doesn't Subsume Traditional LogicTristan Hazehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18008340011384137776noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8137988136860941398.post-27894793380695969132017-06-11T18:24:45.697-07:002017-06-11T18:24:45.697-07:00I've only got some basic logic under my belt, ...I've only got some basic logic under my belt, but I suspect that there is a difference between these two statements, but that this difference can be captured by contemporary logic. I would translate your two statements as:<br /><br />P1. All men are mortal. -> For all x (where the domain of x is men), x is mortal. (AxMx)<br /><br />C. Everything is such that (it is a man ⊃ it is mortal). -> For all x (where the domain of x is anything), if x is a man then x is mortal. (Ax(Ex->Ox))<br /><br />Because they are logically equivalent and the latter can be easier to work with, I think we default to the latter, but I think the former captures the semantic difference you're picking up on.William Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02025125686289799066noreply@blogger.com