Talk:Universal quantification

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:PhilosophyPhilosophy articles	WikiProject Philosophy
	Philosophy portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.  ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.  ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Logic

I disagree to make a seprate article about universal quantifier while there is a good univeral quantification article. Sure they are different, but wikipedia is not a dictionary, meaning we don't need a separate article for each different topics but closely related with one another. -- Taku 03:47 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

Consider the following proposition:

If S is the empty set, is this statement true or false?

-- David 00:23 18 Oct 2005 (EDT)

If , the statement is meaningless, because the quantification presumes S contains elements. Neocapitalist 14:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

No, the statement is vacuously true. – Smyth\^talk 19:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Added Things to Properties 2 ASCII or Unicode 3 Integer numbers instead of natural ones 4 Attempts

[edit] Added Things to Properties

I've added some stuff on negation and rules of inference; if somebody could double-check me, and add the algebraic properties, I'd be much obliged. Neocapitalist 14:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ASCII or Unicode

Is there a ASCII or Unicode value for this symbol I couldn't find it and thought it would be a good thing to have on the page the web address is %E2%88%80

The unicode for "∀" is U+8704. I'll go insert it right now. Aeron (talk) 07:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Integer numbers instead of natural ones

I'm quoting from the example:

For all natural numbers n, 2·n = n + n.

Shouldn't that word be better integer numbers, instead of natural ones? I mean, that formula works too with negative values! I'm not totally sure, so this is why I don't want to directly modify it. But if I'm true, following references may be edited as well. Regards, Néstor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.24.185.92 (talk) 14:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Attempts

I removed 'attempts to' from the lead; if universal quantification is merely an 'attempt' then if it fails somewhere, there should be a discussion of the (alleged) failure; to be sure, the subject of quantification isn't trivial, but I didn't see anywhere in the article that supported 'attempts'.Zero sharp (talk) 13:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)