Date: Feb 26, 2013 3:16 AM
Subject: Re: Matheology ? 222 Back to the roots
In article <m%XWs.20125$mC2.firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Nam Nguyen <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 25/02/2013 10:25 PM, Virgil wrote:
> > In article <SDWWs.99982$Hq1.firstname.lastname@example.org>,
> > 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