Tim Cook wrote:
> All unicorns are chartreuse, 

That's correct, as is "no unicorns are chartreuse". "All unicorns" is 
read as "all unicorns which exist ..." And since there are no unicorns, 
saying "no unicorns have property X" is true also - X(unicorn) is false 
for every unicorn you can supply.

I'm not sure, however, that it's right to say "some unicorns are 
chartreuse". If you say "some unicorns are chartreuse", I can say "point 
to one". "Some unicorns are X" is the same as "There exists at least one 
unicorn which is X."

I think your philosophy professor was wrong. Mine was, several times. 
The midterm paper I did was pointing out the relatively simple flaw in 
the paper he'd had published in some peer-reviewed journal of 
philosophy.  It was kind of obvious to me, being someone who is good at 
finding bugs in software, that what he was saying was trivially 
disprovable with a simple example. That man had a very odd brain.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     On what day did God create the body thetans?

Post a reply to this message