On 26/02/2013 1:16 AM, Virgil wrote: > In article <m%XWs.20125$mC2.392@newsfe29.iad>, > Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen@shaw.ca> wrote: > >> On 25/02/2013 10:25 PM, Virgil wrote: >>> In article <SDWWs.99982$Hq1.27823@newsfe23.iad>, > >>> Since I said "not always", any such situation shows I am right. >> >> I think you misunderstood my point: >> >> In the context of language structure truth verification, >> your original statement would _always_ fail: because for >> Ex[P(x)] to be true, P(x0) must be true for some _example_ x0. > > To know that something must be true for some x0, it need not be known > for which x0 it is true, only that it is true for SOME x0. Which was my > original point!
Then, can you construct a _language structure_ that would illustrate your point?
-- ---------------------------------------------------- There is no remainder in the mathematics of infinity.