Search results

...or that is not that the universal quantifier is not importing but that the Fx is under both a negation and a disjunction, either of which would block the ...ng). The rule you cite is for unrestricted quantification, but in that (x)(Fx => Gx) is true. So your argument confuses two different things and fails

...or that is not that the universal quantifier is not importing but that the Fx is under both a negation and a disjunction, either of which would block the ...ng). The rule you cite is for unrestricted quantification, but in that (x)(Fx => Gx) is true. So your argument confuses two different things and fails.

...ol of the language but rather an abbreviation: “GixFx” was short for “[[Ix|Ix]]( Gx &amp; [[Ay|Ay]](Fy <=> y=x].” If there was not a unique F, the par “~[[Ix|Ix]](Gx &amp; [[Ay|Ay]](Fy <=> y=x]” and “[[Ix|Ix]](~Gx &amp; [[Ay|Ay]](Fy <=> y=x].” Most subsequent – and previous –

...For every predicate, F, there is a d-predicate, F*, defined as a F* iff [[Ix: x bunch &amp; xCa]] x F (Clearly, for d-F, F* is just F)… [[Ix: x bunch]] x F* &amp; [[Ay: y F*]] x C y &amp; xQn / xQf of the existents

> [Ix: x group & xF* & [[Az: zF*] xCz] x G & xQn/ xQf of the F*s/xQr > [Ix: x group & Fx] {y: xCy}G

you can replace "Qx:Fx" with "Fx &" if you like n+1-ad” is “[ix: x among a Ix: x among a](x n-ad & [ay: y among<br />a & y not among x Ay: y among