"mixed sentences" is a correct and usable phrase in written English.
It is typically used to describe a sentence that contains elements of different types or structures, or a sentence that does not follow a consistent pattern or structure. Example: "His essay was full of mixed sentences, with fragments and run-on sentences scattered throughout." In this example, the writer is describing how the essay contained sentences that were not properly constructed, with some being fragments and others being run-ons. The phrase "mixed sentences" is used to convey the idea that the sentences were not consistent in terms of structure.
In any case Carnap's suggestion is as follows (where for convenience terms are used autonymously): Let T be the totality of theoretical postulates, and C be the totality of mixed sentences (the sentences of the theory containing both antecedent and novel terms).
In total, there are 76 seed patterns from 80 annotated mixed sentences, and this set is represented as "MIX" in Table 5.
However, the test has items of a variety of types: following directions (14 items), same-opposites (11), word classification (10), analogies (8), practical items (6), reasoning (5), proverbs (4), arithmetic (4), spatial items (4), mixed sentences (3), cipher decoding (2), and other items (4).
It includes same-opposites, word classifications, analogies, and practical, reasoning, proverbs, arithmetic, spatial, mixed sentences, and cipher-decoding items.
However, the test has items of a variety of types: following directions (14 items), same-opposites (11), word classification (10), analogies (8), practical items (6), reasoning (5), proverbs (4), arithmetic (4), spatial items (4), mixed sentences (3), cypher decoding (2), and other items (4).
If the mixed sentence d ∨ Os is considered to be normative, then (1) is an example of an 'is-ought' inference, and if it is considered to be non-normative, then (2) is an example of an 'is-ought' inference.
In (GH) a mixed sentence φ is derived from a set of purely descriptive sentences (i.e., sentences free of O) only if φ is completely O-irrelevant (that is, predicates in φ within the scope of O can be replaced by other predicates salva valididate).
Yablo thinks that something like this is true in connection with typical utterances of (pure and mixed) mathematical sentences, e.g., sentences like '3 is prime' and 'The number of Martian moons is 2.' So Yablo is certainly proposing a hermeneutic nominalist view, but it's not clear that his view is best thought of as a kind of hermeneutic fictionalism.
But what makes it awkward to take Yablo's view as a version of fictionalism is that he seems to think that what (pure and mixed) mathematical sentences really say or, more precisely, what typical utterances of these sentences really say is true and nominalistic in content.
Sher (2005, 2011) deals with the problem of mixed atomic sentences differently.
In sum, then, the idea here is that fictionalists about pure mathematics can endorse a paraphrase nominalist view of mixed mathematical sentences.
