Newberry <newberryxy@gmail.com> writes:

The point is that if "the apple in my basket is red" conveys that
there is exactly one apple then "all the apples in my basket are red"
conveys that there is more than one apple.

I do not agree, but it's not obviously wrong.

On Apr 19, 8:05 pm, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote:
NOTE: It seems to me that the plain English sentence "all the apples
in my basket are red" is true when there are no apples in the basket.
I'm not convinced that we always interpret such sentences as having an
implicit claim that there are more than one apple in my basket.  But,
insofar as that's how you want to interpret the sentence, either of
the above will do.

Make up your mind. Either
A)
"the aple in my basket is red" = (Ex)(Bx & Rx & (y)(By -> y=x)) and
then
"all the apples in my basket are red" = (Ex)Bx & (x)[Bx -> (Rx & ~(y)
(By -> y=x)], or
B)
"the apple in my basket is red" = (x)[Bx -> (Rx & (y)(By -> y=x))]
"all the apples in my basket are red" = (x)[Bx -> (Rx & ~(y)(By -
y=x))] and

Which one is it?

Newberry <newberr...@gmail.com> writes:
On Apr 20, 6:06 am, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote:
You've drawn the lines differently than I intended.  Here are the
options.  We interpret "All the apples in my basket are red" as
implying

(a) nothing about the number of apples in the basket.

  (x)(Bx -> Rx)

(b) that there is at least one apple in the basket.

  (Ex)(Bx) & (x)(Bx -> Rx)

(c) that there is more than one apple in the basket.

  (Ex)Bx & (x)[Bx -> (Rx & ~(y)(By -> y=x))]

(d) that there is not exactly one apple in the basket.

  (x)[Bx -> (Rx & ~(y)(By -> y=x))]

(d) is most implausible and I was not suggesting that we interpret the
sentence as (d).  I was suggesting that we interpret the sentence as
(a).  I don't see the phrase "All of the X satisfying P..." conveys
anything about whether or how many X satisfy P.

Oh? Do you know the difference between "apple" and "apples"? "Apple"
means "one apple", "apples" means "more than one apple."

"All unicorns have one horn."  You agree that this is a true statement
and you also agree that there are no unicorns, right?

In this respect, the sentence "The apples in my basket are all red,"
is different.  It *does* seem to imply that there are at least two
such apples and I'd say that (c) is the most plausible
interpretation.  Because the sentences

  "All the apples in my basket are red."
  "The apples in my basket are all red."

are so similar, I'm willing to admit that one might interpret the
former in exactly the same way and hence choose (c).  I wouldn't, but
it's not obviously wrong.

The point is that if "the apple in my basket is red" conveys that
there is exactly one apple then "all the apples in my basket are red"
conveys that there is more than one apple.

I do not agree, but it's not obviously wrong.

I would not interpret "the apple in my basket is red" as (Ex)(Bx &
Rx & (y)(By -> y=x)), but if you choose to do so then you must also
interpret "all the apples in my basket are red" as c).

No, I do not see any reason I "must" do so.  Again, what do you think
about my unicorn sentence?  Do you think that it is false?

Because the uniqueness does not come from the "the" but from the fact
that the sentence is in singular. Obviously. "The apples in my basket
are red" does not imply that there is exactly one apple evan though it
also contains "the."

It comes from both the singular and the definite article.  If I say,
"An apple in my basket is red," I have not claimed that exactly one
apple is red.

Furthermore "the apple in my basket is red" and "the apples in my
basket are red" are mutually exclusive. Therefore you have to
interpret the later either as more than one apple.

Russell's theory of descriptions and "all the round squares are green"
cannot both be true at the same time.

I'm beginning to wonder about your emphasis on the definite article.
Do you think that the following sentences express the same idea or
different ideas?

 "All apples in my basket are red."          (*)
 "All the apples in my basket are red."      (**)
 "All of the apples in my basket are red."   (***)  

If you interpret the first and second differently, then that would
explain a lot.  And I wouldn't say that you're necessarily wrong to do
so.  So, if you wish, I'll concede that (**) is plausibly translated
as (c) while (*) is translated as (a).

None of my answers here have a damn thing to do with the question of
how to interpret "The apple in my basket is red."  That sentence
clearly implies there is one and only one apple in my basket

It does not. (x)[Bx -> (Rx & (y)(By -> y=x)] presupposes (Ex)Bx. But
that is a different issue.

I'm still not seeing your point in all of this.  What is the
conclusion you want us to draw?

On Apr 20, 6:06 am, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote:
You've drawn the lines differently than I intended.  Here are the
options.  We interpret "All the apples in my basket are red" as
implying

(a) nothing about the number of apples in the basket.

  (x)(Bx -> Rx)

(b) that there is at least one apple in the basket.

  (Ex)(Bx) & (x)(Bx -> Rx)

(c) that there is more than one apple in the basket.

  (Ex)Bx & (x)[Bx -> (Rx & ~(y)(By -> y=x))]

(d) that there is not exactly one apple in the basket.

  (x)[Bx -> (Rx & ~(y)(By -> y=x))]

(d) is most implausible and I was not suggesting that we interpret the
sentence as (d).  I was suggesting that we interpret the sentence as
(a).  I don't see the phrase "All of the X satisfying P..." conveys
anything about whether or how many X satisfy P.

Oh? Do you know the difference between "apple" and "apples"? "Apple"
means "one apple", "apples" means "more than one apple."

In this respect, the sentence "The apples in my basket are all red,"
is different.  It *does* seem to imply that there are at least two
such apples and I'd say that (c) is the most plausible
interpretation.  Because the sentences

  "All the apples in my basket are red."
  "The apples in my basket are all red."

are so similar, I'm willing to admit that one might interpret the
former in exactly the same way and hence choose (c).  I wouldn't, but
it's not obviously wrong.

The point is that if "the apple in my basket is red" conveys that
there is exactly one apple then "all the apples in my basket are red"
conveys that there is more than one apple.

I would not interpret "the apple in my basket is red" as (Ex)(Bx &
Rx & (y)(By -> y=x)), but if you choose to do so then you must also
interpret "all the apples in my basket are red" as c).

Because the uniqueness does not come from the "the" but from the fact
that the sentence is in singular. Obviously. "The apples in my basket
are red" does not imply that there is exactly one apple evan though it
also contains "the."

Furthermore "the apple in my basket is red" and "the apples in my
basket are red" are mutually exclusive. Therefore you have to
interpret the later either as more than one apple.

Russell's theory of descriptions and "all the round squares are green"
cannot both be true at the same time.

None of my answers here have a damn thing to do with the question of
how to interpret "The apple in my basket is red."  That sentence
clearly implies there is one and only one apple in my basket

It does not. (x)[Bx -> (Rx & (y)(By -> y=x)] presupposes (Ex)Bx. But
that is a different issue.

Newberry <newberr...@gmail.com> writes:
On Apr 20, 6:06 am, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote:
You've drawn the lines differently than I intended.  Here are the
options.  We interpret "All the apples in my basket are red" as
implying

(a) nothing about the number of apples in the basket.

  (x)(Bx -> Rx)

(b) that there is at least one apple in the basket.

  (Ex)(Bx) & (x)(Bx -> Rx)

(c) that there is more than one apple in the basket.

  (Ex)Bx & (x)[Bx -> (Rx & ~(y)(By -> y=x))]

(d) that there is not exactly one apple in the basket.

  (x)[Bx -> (Rx & ~(y)(By -> y=x))]

(d) is most implausible and I was not suggesting that we interpret the
sentence as (d).  I was suggesting that we interpret the sentence as
(a).  I don't see the phrase "All of the X satisfying P..." conveys
anything about whether or how many X satisfy P.

Oh? Do you know the difference between "apple" and "apples"? "Apple"
means "one apple", "apples" means "more than one apple."

"All unicorns have one horn."  You agree that this is a true statement
and you also agree that there are no unicorns, right?

In this respect, the sentence "The apples in my basket are all red,"
is different.  It *does* seem to imply that there are at least two
such apples and I'd say that (c) is the most plausible
interpretation.  Because the sentences

  "All the apples in my basket are red."
  "The apples in my basket are all red."

are so similar, I'm willing to admit that one might interpret the
former in exactly the same way and hence choose (c).  I wouldn't, but
it's not obviously wrong.

The point is that if "the apple in my basket is red" conveys that
there is exactly one apple then "all the apples in my basket are red"
conveys that there is more than one apple.

I do not agree, but it's not obviously wrong.

I would not interpret "the apple in my basket is red" as (Ex)(Bx &
Rx & (y)(By -> y=x)), but if you choose to do so then you must also
interpret "all the apples in my basket are red" as c).

No, I do not see any reason I "must" do so.  Again, what do you think
about my unicorn sentence?  Do you think that it is false?

Because the uniqueness does not come from the "the" but from the fact
that the sentence is in singular. Obviously. "The apples in my basket
are red" does not imply that there is exactly one apple evan though it
also contains "the."

It comes from both the singular and the definite article.  If I say,
"An apple in my basket is red," I have not claimed that exactly one
apple is red.

Furthermore "the apple in my basket is red" and "the apples in my
basket are red" are mutually exclusive. Therefore you have to
interpret the later either as more than one apple.

Russell's theory of descriptions and "all the round squares are green"
cannot both be true at the same time.

I'm beginning to wonder about your emphasis on the definite article.
Do you think that the following sentences express the same idea or
different ideas?

 "All apples in my basket are red."          (*)
 "All the apples in my basket are red."      (**)
 "All of the apples in my basket are red."   (***)  

If you interpret the first and second differently, then that would
explain a lot.  And I wouldn't say that you're necessarily wrong to do
so.  So, if you wish, I'll concede that (**) is plausibly translated
as (c) while (*) is translated as (a).

None of my answers here have a damn thing to do with the question of
how to interpret "The apple in my basket is red."  That sentence
clearly implies there is one and only one apple in my basket

It does not. (x)[Bx -> (Rx & (y)(By -> y=x)] presupposes (Ex)Bx. But
that is a different issue.

I'm still not seeing your point in all of this.  What is the
conclusion you want us to draw?
--
"They are anti-mathematicians, evil incarnate, dedicated to undermining
intellectual development in this area.  If you never thought such
people could actually exist, outside of myths or legends, welcome to
the real world." --James S Harris on evil incarnate's Usenet presence- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Newberry <newberr...@gmail.com> writes:
On Apr 20, 9:03 am, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote:
"All unicorns have one horn."  You agree that this is a true statement
and you also agree that there are no unicorns, right?

I tend to agree with both. What about it?

I think I'm seeing where our difference is.  It's all about the
definite article, right?

Do you think that "All the unicorns have one horn" is also true?

[...]

It comes from both the singular and the definite article.  If I say,
"An apple in my basket is red," I have not claimed that exactly one
apple is red.

Well yeah OK, I may concede this. But Russell seems to think that it
comes from the "the" alone, which does not make much sense to me.

[...]



I'm still not seeing your point in all of this.  What is the
conclusion you want us to draw?

Russell's theory of descriptions and "all the round squares are green"
cannot both be true at the same time.

It's not obvious to me that Russell's theory of descriptions has
anything to say about "All the apples in my basket...", because I
wouldn't think of "the apples in my basket" *in that sentence* as a
description.  But I ask you again this question you failed to answer
the first time:

Do the following sentences mean the same thing or not?

 "All apples in my basket are red."          (*)
 "All the apples in my basket are red."      (**)
 "All of the apples in my basket are red."   (***)

and, for completeness:
   "The apples in my basket are all red."      (****)

Because, after all, we usually say "All round squares are green" is
true, not that "All *the* round squares are green" is true.  If you
want to say that the latter one is *not* true (because of "the"), I
don't see much to argue, but that was never really the sentence at
issue anyway.  You're fussing about with the definite article, rather
than the real issue, namely whether "all round squares are green" is
meaningful and true.

--
Jesse F. Hughes
"Just goes to tell you.  If you make a major discovery, and some stupid
interviewer asks you if you're the greatest mathematician of all time,
just say no."  -- practical advice from James S. Harris

On Apr 20, 9:03 am, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote:
"All unicorns have one horn."  You agree that this is a true statement
and you also agree that there are no unicorns, right?

I tend to agree with both. What about it?

It comes from both the singular and the definite article.  If I say,
"An apple in my basket is red," I have not claimed that exactly one
apple is red.

Well yeah OK, I may concede this. But Russell seems to think that it
comes from the "the" alone, which does not make much sense to me.

I'm still not seeing your point in all of this.  What is the
conclusion you want us to draw?

Russell's theory of descriptions and "all the round squares are green"
cannot both be true at the same time.

 "All apples in my basket are red."          (*)
 "All the apples in my basket are red."      (**)
 "All of the apples in my basket are red."   (***)  
and, for completeness:

Newberry <newberr...@gmail.com> writes:
On Apr 20, 2:14 pm, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote:
Newberry <newberr...@gmail.com> writes:
On Apr 20, 9:03 am, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote:
"All unicorns have one horn."  You agree that this is a true statement
and you also agree that there are no unicorns, right?

I tend to agree with both. What about it?

I think I'm seeing where our difference is.  It's all about the
definite article, right?

Do you think that "All the unicorns have one horn" is also true?

Yes.

Okay, you got me.  I've no idea what you are thinking at all.

As far as I can tell, you want to say that "All the apples in my
basket are red" implies that there are at least two apples in my
basket.  Right?  

On the other hand, "All the unicorns have one horn" does *not* imply
that any unicorns exist.  Is that also right?

It's not obvious to me that Russell's theory of descriptions has
anything to say about "All the apples in my basket...", because I
wouldn't think of "the apples in my basket" *in that sentence* as a
description.  But I ask you again this question you failed to answer
the first time:

Do the following sentences mean the same thing or not?

 "All apples in my basket are red."          (*)
 "All the apples in my basket are red."      (**)
 "All of the apples in my basket are red."   (***)

Yes. 

and, for completeness:
   "The apples in my basket are all red."      (****)

Because, after all, we usually say "All round squares are green" is
true, not that "All *the* round squares are green" is true.  If you
want to say that the latter one is *not* true (because of "the"), I
don't see much to argue, but that was never really the sentence at
issue anyway.  You're fussing about with the definite article, rather
than the real issue, namely whether "all round squares are green" is
meaningful and true.

What on earth are you talking about? I have been talking all the
time about the theory of descriptions, and it is all about "the." If
two sentences have the same meaning and one of them has "the" and
the other one does not, it is a further indication that the theory
is problematic.

Did Russell give a theory that claims every use of "the" has logical
implications?  In fact, did he give a theory of "the" in general?  If
not, I do not understand what would be problematic in the case you
mention.

Anyway, you *just said* that "all the apples..." and "all apples..."
mean the same thing.  Could you explain exactly how this is a problem
for Russell's theory?

--
"If you have a really big idea, you can get a measure of how big it is
by how much people resist the obvious.  From what I've seen, I have a
REALLY, REALLY, *REALLY*, BIG DISCOVERY!!!"  
     --James Harris: If I'm not important, how come people ignore me?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Newberry <newberr...@gmail.com> writes:
It comes from both the singular and the definite article.  If I say,
"An apple in my basket is red," I have not claimed that exactly one
apple is red.

Isn't the sentence synonymous with "one apple in my basket is red"?

Suppose it is.  Does it mean "Exactly one apple in my basket is red"?
Not obvious to me, but neither is it clear what you're getting at here
anyway.

It comes from both the singular and the definite article.  If I say,
"An apple in my basket is red," I have not claimed that exactly one
apple is red.

Isn't the sentence synonymous with "one apple in my basket is red"?

On Apr 20, 2:14 pm, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote:
Newberry <newberr...@gmail.com> writes:
On Apr 20, 9:03 am, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote:
"All unicorns have one horn."  You agree that this is a true statement
and you also agree that there are no unicorns, right?

I tend to agree with both. What about it?

I think I'm seeing where our difference is.  It's all about the
definite article, right?

Do you think that "All the unicorns have one horn" is also true?

Yes.

It's not obvious to me that Russell's theory of descriptions has
anything to say about "All the apples in my basket...", because I
wouldn't think of "the apples in my basket" *in that sentence* as a
description.  But I ask you again this question you failed to answer
the first time:

Do the following sentences mean the same thing or not?

 "All apples in my basket are red."          (*)
 "All the apples in my basket are red."      (**)
 "All of the apples in my basket are red."   (***)

Yes. 

and, for completeness:
   "The apples in my basket are all red."      (****)

Because, after all, we usually say "All round squares are green" is
true, not that "All *the* round squares are green" is true.  If you
want to say that the latter one is *not* true (because of "the"), I
don't see much to argue, but that was never really the sentence at
issue anyway.  You're fussing about with the definite article, rather
than the real issue, namely whether "all round squares are green" is
meaningful and true.

What on earth are you talking about? I have been talking all the
time about the theory of descriptions, and it is all about "the." If
two sentences have the same meaning and one of them has "the" and
the other one does not, it is a further indication that the theory
is problematic.

On Apr 20, 6:25 pm, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote:
...
Did Russell give a theory that claims every use of "the" has logical
implications? In fact, did he give a theory of "the" in general? If
not, I do not understand what would be problematic in the case you
mention.

He was not explicit. Apparently he thought he provided the theory of
"the."

On Apr 20, 6:25 pm, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote:

Okay, you got me.  I've no idea what you are thinking at all.

As far as I can tell, you want to say that "All the apples in my
basket are red" implies that there are at least two apples in my
basket.  Right?  

On the other hand, "All the unicorns have one horn" does *not* imply
that any unicorns exist.  Is that also right?

You are getting more and more entangled in this. One thing is my own
view and another thing is what I accepted for the sake of argument. My
own view is that "all the blalbla" PRESUPPOSES that there is something
in the subject class. I also argued that IF you accept Russell's
theory of descrpiption (which I do not necessarily) then, to be
consistent, you cannot claim that "all round squares are green" is
true but you must add the implied existence just like in the case of
the king.

Did Russell give a theory that claims every use of "the" has logical
implications?  In fact, did he give a theory of "the" in general?  If
not, I do not understand what would be problematic in the case you
mention.

He was not explicit. Apparently he thought he provided the theory of
"the."

Anyway, you *just said* that "all the apples..." and "all apples..."
mean the same thing.  Could you explain exactly how this is a problem
for Russell's theory?

If the same holds for a sentence without "the" what is supposed to
be the essence of "the" then the thory is suspect.

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 19:44:58 -0700 (PDT), Newberry <newberr...@gmail.com> said:

On Apr 20, 6:25 pm, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote:
...
Did Russell give a theory that claims every use of "the" has logical
implications? In fact, did he give a theory of "the" in general? If
not, I do not understand what would be problematic in the case you
mention.

He was not explicit. Apparently he thought he provided the theory of
"the."

He never made any such claim.  Russell's theory of descriptions only
applies to sentences of the form "The F is G" involving *singular*
descriptions.  He doesn't ever suggest that sentences involving plural
descriptions be analyzed along the same lines of those involving
singular descriptions.  To the extent that he addressed plural
descriptions -- "the Fs" -- at all, he suggests that such terms indicate
"classes as many" and function something like plural quantifiers,
anticipating the work of Boolos and others.

 Consider the following
quote from Section 70 of Principles of Mathematics:

"A class, as we have seen, is neither a predicate nor a class-concept,
for different predicates and different class-concepts may correspond to
the same class. A class also, in one sense at least, is distinct from
the whole composed of its terms, for the latter is only and essentially
one, while the former, where it has many terms, is, as we shall see
later, the very kind of object of which many is to be asserted. The
distinction of a class as many from a class as a whole is often made by
language: space and points, time and instants, the army and the
soldiers, the navy and the sailors, the Cabinet and the Cabinet
Ministers, all illustrate the distinction."

One of Russell's arguments is "By the law of the excluded middle,
either 'A is B' or 'A is not B' must be true. Hence either 'the
present King of France is bald' or 'the present King of France is not
bald' must be true. Yet if we enumerated the things that are bald and
the things that are not bald, we should not find the present King of
France on either list." [On Denoting]

The implied existence solved this puzzle making the proposition false.

But the same argument applies to plural. "By the law of the excluded
middle, either 'all As are B' or 'there is an A who not B' must be
true. Hence either 'all the Doges of France are bald' or 'there is a
Doge of France who is not bald' must be true. Yet if we enumerated the
things that are bald and the things that are not bald, we should not
find any Doge of France on either list."

Therefore existence must be implied in case of plural as well.