Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(3)
Exact(13)
The passage from B6 makes clear that the "no smallest" principle is connected to the principle of Everything-in-Everything, and B3 asserts that the "no smallest" claim depends on the impossibility of what-is-not.
Indeed, the principle requires that all ingredients be in every space at all times (the No Smallest or Largest principle also plays a role here: see sect. 2.3).
Not only does the No Smallest or Largest principle rule this out (see sect. 2.3), but the particulate interpretation seems inconsistent with the Everything-in-Everything principle.
Such a cut, which corresponds to a given value, defines an irrational number if no largest or no smallest is present in either part; whereas a rational is defined as a cut in which one part contains a smallest or a largest.
Many of our inferences featuring mass terms are distributive, which implies that stuffs are infinitely divisible and have no smallest parts according to the correct semantic modeling.
A problem for the Principle of Predominance is to determine what it is to be a predominant ingredient, especially given the Everything-in-Everything and No Smallest principles.
Similar(47)
'No, smaller.
No small thing.
No small concern.
No small subjects here.
No small wonder, that.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com