nostr:nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyd968gmewwp6kyqpqaa3gj7gcnc8v9d28qac8jhthr7hjchyxnydm0jmc4e8jqureggyswq0dx7
Why doesn't this explanation of falsehood apply to the first statement which also ha...
@nprofile1q... Why should that explanation apply in the case of All? "All" and "Some" mean different things and have a different logic.
They are connected in that if All Fs are Gs, then it's *not* the case that Some Fs are not Gs. And conversely, if it's not the case that some Fs are not Gs, then All Fs are Gs.
If you follow that, you see that if there are no Fs, since it can't be the case that some Fs are not Gs (since there are no Fs at all), then indeed all Fs (vacuously) are Gs.
They are connected in that if All Fs are Gs, then it's *not* the case that Some Fs are not Gs. And conversely, if it's not the case that some Fs are not Gs, then All Fs are Gs.
If you follow that, you see that if there are no Fs, since it can't be the case that some Fs are not Gs (since there are no Fs at all), then indeed all Fs (vacuously) are Gs.