whom Alex Kingston hasn't been involved with, or at least propositioned by?
On his version of the view, propositions (at least the propositions expressed by sentences) are meta-linguistic facts about sentences.
If this set of propositions is logically inconsistent, as it surely is, then at least one proposition in the set is false.
Every bloke I know on Tinder has had at least one proposition from a girl he's "matched" with on the app before they've even swapped phone numbers.
That is, if the propositions that make up a question meaning are required to cover the entire logical space, then for any question meaning I and any world w, there is always at least one proposition α in I that contains w.
A why-question, according to van Fraassen (1980, 144 145) presupposes (i) that its topic is true, (ii) that, in its contrast class, only its topic is true, and (iii) that at least one proposition bearing the explanatory relevance relation to the topic/contrast-class pair is true.
If, as in the second version of the paresis case, there are such factors, so that at least one proposition bears the relevance relation to the topic/contrast-class pair, then a candidate answer A is evaluated according to three criteria: how acceptable or likely A is, the degree to which A favors P over other members of X, and whether A is made irrelevant by other answers.
In an unsuccessful effort to ascertain at least which propositions are unsolvable, the English mathematician and logician Alan Turing rigorously defined the loosely understood concept of an algorithm.
A parallel "easy argument" can be given for the abstractness of at least some propositions.
This is an easy argument for the mind-independence of at least some propositions.
