What is the “World’s Best Cartridge”?

Some questions are difficult to answer. Some smart ''.. ''asked the religious

kind: ''Can Almighty make such havy stone which he can't lift?'' 

I try to understand the premise or assertion on which the ''conclusions '' are

based' . Those are called  in logic and mathematics  ''universal quantors''.

Those are in contra dsistinction with ''numerical''. Numerical name the numbers

of ''indicviduals'' involved while ''universal'' don't;

The formula e for universal kinds is:

''for all x Fx & Gx''  

'There are exacltly 100.000 members of A'gon forum.''  is the numerical.

One of Tarski's '''theories  of thruth'' is called 'truth by satisfaction''..

In the formula  above this means that all members of set ''x'' satisfy

conditions F and G. If there is one contra example or ''one x'' which does

not satisfay both F and G condiions  the (general) statement is NOT TRUE.

''All '' is not a name with refering function so we can't know to what  ''it''

refers to. In writeing an statement with ''all '' in the  ''subject place'' we

only assumet to to have said something sensible .

That is why numerical quantors explain ''universal''. because we know

the number of individuals to which ''it'' refers.

European commission decided that ''all immigrants'' have te right foir asylum procedure''. But each country has laws which determine condition which

''asylum immigrants'' NEED to satisfy to get an Asylum. The most do not

satisfy those conditions and will not get one. Well the (whole) European commission had no idea what ''all'' means so Europe got immigrants from ''everywhere''. The whole Africa in addition to Syria. Holland for example

has no place to put them.. While there is no possibility to return them

to their countires because those  will not accept them back.

I hope that the ''SENSE'' of the question iin casu is well explained?

 

 

  

The quantor ''all'' is not a name with reference, Its function is to express

generality. The question can only be answered with refrence to the number

of carts each person owns. Aka with ''numerical quantifier '' . ,So ''the best

of my 4 samples IS'...'. Or (Raul)  ''the best of my 100 samples Is''. But to know which of ''all 'ever produced'' which  ''all'' as universal quantifier mply is silly question. 

is 

Some ''philosophical'' remarks about this '''theme''. 

The general quantification theory looks like this

''all x are Fg&Gx''

If there is one x which does not satisfy conditions F&G the(general)

statement is not true.

Hower why should wahtever object satsfy only two conditios?

We can use as variables ,say,: a,b,c...n  conditions. Aka there are

no limits to one or two.

Think of Popper with his ''critical rationalism''. According to him proving

an theory is not possible but well REFUTATION. His ''grow of knowledge''

get curious consequence: the more theories are refuted the more knowledge

we get???

But what kinds of ''theory'' he has in mind? Well one with one variable.

His own example is:

''all swans are white''

but the one he discovered in Australia which

was ''black'' REFUTED THE THEORY THAT ''all are white''.

This seems to me to be  ''very poor theory''. 

There is also an ''truth theory'' ascribed to Tarski:

''truth by satisfaction'' . That is to say  by satisfaction but of how many

conditions? The ''picture obove'' is misleading in the sense of suggestion

of ONLY TWO: F and G.

I don't  believe that the members in this thread realized what they are

talking about.

 

pindac, I am talking about LOGIC of used  sentences or statement which

include ''universal quantifier'' you about ''price '' and old classical economist

terms ''value in use'' as opposite to  ''value in exchange'' (aka price). 

I assumed that we all question any ralation  between ''quality of sound''

and the prices for our ''gear''. Think of  Dover's praise of this cheap

Denon which cost only a half of ''only stylus retip''. I have no idea why

he offered to me only half of an glas wine. Should I visit him all the

way to (Dutch) New Sealand for such ''PRICE''?  

miijostyn, I try to explain expressioon ALL as universal quantifier.

Experession ''some'' is unversal existential quantifier. t assuems

existance. But those are NOT NAMES which in ''subject place'' of

an sentence can be put as refering.expressions.

Perhapes ''some'' will do as in complaint: :''someone has stolen my car''.

If you knew who this ''someone'' is you would not use expression ''some''.

European commission decided thst ''ALL IMMIGRANTS HAVE THE RIGHT

TO ASYLUM PROCEDURE. Without consulting member  state HOW MANY

they are willing to accept. Merkel stated' 'we will manage'' without any

iidea about  the numeber (aka ''how many'') of immigrants. For this

purpose the so called NUMERICAL quanrifiers are needed. Say 10 or

50 mllion.etc. BTW Holland can't manage those immigrants because only

an smal part satisfy conditions for ASYLUM . Each country has rules

reg. treatment of strangers.

The ''best student in the class''  assume say 30 person in the class but

the ''best studenin the world'' can't be known.

The ''best cartridge '' is relational term because it imply comparison among

HOW MANY CARTRIDGES? Can you make any statement about cartridges

which you have never heard? Those are INCLUDED in ''ALL CARTRIDGES''

in this thread. 

I already mentioned in my post that this question can be only answered in

the context of ''my cartriges are ...and from them the one that I like the

most (aka ''is the best'') is ,say, Ikeda'' FR-7fz . Raul owns _+ 100 and

from THOSE he seems to like ADC26 the most. Capiche?

thread 

 

 

pindac, May I call your opproach ''holistic'' and my ''analitic'' . By you everything

is connected witth each other  while my approucs is reduction of complexity. 

Say reduction of grammar form to : X is P . In place of variable x one can put

whatever ''subject'' one want as well in the place of ''P'' ( aka predicate) as

''property'' or ''quality'' expressions. Try to construct an RELATIONAL STATEMENT

with this grammar form. What I mean is that  '''X is P'' is not suitable

for relational .statements which  imply more  subjects than one. Well comparing

cartridges are such ''many subjects'' statements. ''The best'' means the best

from many while quantifier  ALL ''shows'' the problem . Who knows ALL 

cartridges ever made? Even Raul with his +100 samples has chosen ADC 26

while owning also Jan Allearts ''formula I'' with many ''sans'' from Jspan..

The same result as empirical approach by dover. We don't know how many he

owns but we do know which he likes the most. I don't believe that his or Raul's choice is , say, ''VERY EXPENSIVE'' . So what is the relation beween price

and ''quality'' of sound? 

I mentioned some problems with quatifier ''ALL'' but would like to say more

about this, uh, ''expression.''.

The first paradox mentioned was about ''Greek liar''  by, uh, the old Greek.

The Greek who stated that ALL Greek are liear''. But becuse he is also Greek...

this means that all are stating truth..

The 'set theoretic paradoxes'' occured by ''SET OF ALL SETS'' 

If we have no idea about what we talking  about than...

Russel try to solve  the problem by limiting ''extension of sets''. Aka ''about

which set are we talking ?''

BTW Frega was fthe first who ''placed the problem '' in the context of ''generality'.

We use those terms (quantifier) to express ''generality'' ..In english literture

called ''universality'' and hence: ''universal quantifier'. But the question

''how many'' is anwered by 'numerical quantifier'' . Politians in Euroipe whio

have no idea about this difference caused not only immigrants problems but

alo ''energy problem'' by sanctions against ''all Russian raw materials'' . 

Well Europe lack those while Russia owns one third of the world naturl

resources.  At present Europe has next to immigrants crisis also ''energy crisis''

caused by polititian who make laws.but have no idea about their implications

The so called ''Club of Rome'' warned about scaricity of row materials in 1972!

mijostyn, I see you try some other approach than the one in your

previous post. Probable to improve your ''status'' . Alas this will not do,.

We buy ''new carts'' out of curiosity but in order to try. If we are satisfy

after ''listening cesions'' we will keep the cart. Otherwise get rid of it

by (re) reselling the thing.

Thanks to Raul we got the chance to do this ''luxury'' approach for free. 

BTW when we look at ''technical specs'' of carts they all look as one

egg to one other, except  by Allearts . His are unbelievable but his carts

do not sound better than some other with ''less impresive'' specs.

See Raul's preference for ADC 26  in comparison. 

Comaring versus ''attributing ''  property to wahtever objject..

The later has the grammar form: ''x is P''

The former has more ''subjects'' than one: John is longer than Peter''.

We get in trouble when x state that John is longer than Peter but y

state the othee way round or state that Dover is even longer than

both mentioned (grin).

In all coutries implicite ''longer than relation'' is transformed in

names for properties. Say Stefanos is large and Miotakis short or small.

But when Stefanos moves to Holland he loses the property LARGE

because the Dutch are longest people in the wolrd.

How than can Stefano's lose the property ''large'' if he ''has the

propertt large''? Because of the grammar ? 

No because sentence form ''x is P'' is not suiitable for comparisons. 

Frege started from there when he wanted to invent languge suitble

for science. That is that accordidin to him ''ordinsry llanguge'' is not

suitable for science. He is called ''father of modern logic''.

In this thread members try to put their opinions in ''x is P'' form

not realizing that comparisons can't be put in this grammar form. 

To know which cart is ''world's best'' one would need to compare

all carts ever produced.but than ''rank them'' according to his subjective

preference. We will than get that, say, accoridng to Raul C is the best

which will be denided by dover because according to him D is the best.. 

Assuming ordening according to:  a,b,c,... n'' conditions. 

''Çalling names'' as grammar versus logic, linguistic and even phlosophy

of languge. Our Lew felt ''insulted'' by some remarks by Raul while

Raul deny his intetntion to insult Lew. This is my intriodiction to,uh,

this ''subjec matter''. not my ''explication'' of this matter.

Logic state big difference between NAMES and PREDICATES. The firtst

meniotned ''lack predicative function''. That is to say ''they say 

nothing about the bearers of name. If  I say Gordon Smith and you

ask ''whom do you mean'' or ''what about him''. You would not ask this

question if NAME Gordeon Smith has its own, say , meaning.

However grammar change names into adjectives and THOSE may

be insulting. Say America and American. The later may mean many

things: the richest country in the world, American military , American

dominance etc. But the question to whom bellong English language is

never questioned among English speaking ''nations''. On my Balkan 

the issus is much more serioes. There are 4 ethnic  groups who will start 

a war about the language question because each of them claim their

own despite the fact that they all can understand each other. That is

how adjjective work as ''belonging to''. Aka as owners

question. We all are programed with some languge with words and

their presupposed meaning so there are also ''words'''which are 

''verboten'' or ''not done'' . This is ''obvious'' (?) confusion between

NAMES and predicates or adjectives . I think that adjectives are about

assumed ''quolities'' and predicates about properties. 

 

 

 

 

One