Tracking and quantifying objects and non-cohesive substances.
The Babylonians, Sumerians, Greeks, Chinese, Indians and Persians all had slightly different ways of quantifying objects and areas and slightly different ways of writing down their numbers.
Finally, quantifying object exploration in the spontaneous object recognition task is problematic as all experiments have to assume that only behavior in the immediate vicinity of an object (e.g., <1 cm) constitutes exploration, even though it has been shown that objects can be visually inspected from further away (Winters & Reid, 2010).
Many theorists assume that the logical forms of such sentences should be tripartite structures with a quantifier that quantifies over objects or situations, a restrictor that limits the quantificational domain, and a nuclear scope (main clause) that makes an assertion about the elements of the domain (e.g., see Carlson 2011; Cohen 2002; or Carlson & Pelletier 1995).
Additionally, the contributions of diverse semantic layers are quantified: the object-category layer is the most important and makes 54% contribution to functional-zone classification; while, other semantic layers are less important but their contributions cannot be ignored.
Modern laboratories use a vast number of instruments and procedures to study, systematize, or quantify the objects of their attention.
Nevertheless, the comparison of the results with an urban database realized using a Computer Assisted Photo-Interpretation method shows a better capacity to delineate urban extent at regional scale and to quantify urban objects at local scale.
After all, we often quantify over objects we have no reason to believe exist, such as fictional entities.
After all, we can quantify over objects that do not exist, given the rejection of the indispensability argument's first premise.
