Sentence examples for understand the quantifiers that from inspiring English sources

Is there then a third way to understand the quantifiers that is neither referential nor substitutional?

These are the quantifiers that logicians during the 1950s began to 'generalize'generalize

Much has been written about the way in which Leśniewski understood the quantifiers 'for some' and 'for all'.

We separate the discussions of quantifiers that apply to attributes with basic types such as numbers and strings, versus quantifiers that apply to attributes whose types are lists of other DB objects, which are described in the next section.

Second-order languages contain not just first-order quantifiers that range over elements of the domain, but also second-order quantifiers that range over properties (or subsets) of the domain.

The set of sentences of GL with propositional quantifiers that is arithmetically valid turns out to be undecidable (Shavrukov 1997).

These axioms captured the informal BHK-interpretation of the connectives and quantifiers that we gave earlier.

But suppose the "some" Armstrong and Bigelow employ is understood not as an objectual quantifier that comes equipped with a domain of entities over which it ranges but is understood in some other way.

For there can be no doubt that in natural language we use and understand the expressions 'for any things' and 'there are some things'.[4] Since these quantifiers bind variables that take name (rather than predicate) position, they are first-order quantifiers, albeit plural ones.

Second, the existential quantifier in (Gen) must be a higher-order quantifier that quantifies into sentential position.

A substitutional interpretation of the quantifiers requires that instances be simpler than the formulas of which they are instances.