Clarification needed for "some"

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter NATURE.M
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the interpretation of the term "some" in mathematical logic, specifically whether it can be equated to "one" in the context of proving the existence of elements that satisfy a particular property. The scope includes conceptual clarification and technical reasoning related to logical statements.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether "some" can refer to "one" in mathematical logic, highlighting the ambiguity of the term.
  • Another participant provides an example involving logical statements about people, illustrating how "some" can be interpreted in a tautological context.
  • This participant argues that "some" can be understood as "at least one," suggesting that clarity can be achieved by using precise language or mathematical symbols.
  • A later reply acknowledges the importance of context in understanding the meaning of "some" and suggests that careful wording can help avoid confusion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the interpretation of "some," with some suggesting it can mean "one" while others emphasize the need for precision in language. The discussion does not reach a consensus on the definition of "some."

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the potential for ambiguity in the term "some" and the importance of context and precise definitions in mathematical logic. There is an acknowledgment that informal usage may lead to misunderstandings.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying mathematical logic, language in mathematics, or anyone engaged in formal reasoning where clarity of terms is crucial.

NATURE.M
Messages
298
Reaction score
0
In mathematical logic, can "some" refer to "one".
Namely can you prove a 'some … satisfy Property A', by proving there exists one that satisfies property A. The term just seems really ambiguous.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If we say that

1. all people are either men or women,
2. and that not all people are men,

then we can conclude

3. some people are women.

You mean like that?

Here statement 3 is basically another way of writing statement 2. It's a tautology.

You are correct - if there were only one woman in the group "people" then statement 3 applies.
It reads the same as "there is at least one".

You are also correct that it is informal - there are contexts where you want to distinguish between "some", "several" and "many". But usually you will want to be more careful than that. Where there is danger of confusion, say what you mean: if you mean "at least one" then say so.

It usually gets clearer if you write it out in math symbols:
P := people, M := men, W := women.
$$\text{if}\; P=\{M,W\}\land |M|<|P|\; \text{then}\; |W|>0$$... or something like that.
 
Last edited:
Thanks Simon.
 
No worries - check the context and the meaning should appear.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
7K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
6K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K