Talk:Logical hexagon

The article is good because it reads the logical propositions of the logical square as such

(Jean KemperNN (talk) 08:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)) The article is good. It reads the logical propositions of the square: A E I O as such. For instance A is read "Whatever x may be, if x is a man, then x is white." conformably to the algoritmic expression (x)(M(x) → W(x))of modern logic. Jean-François Monteil, the author of the present remarks, thinks that it is not legitimate to identify A that is (x)(M(x) → W(x)) with the marked universal affirmative of natural language All men are white (or Everyman is white). In his opinion,the logical proposition A Whatever x may be, if x is a man, then x is white exactly represents the common referent of two semantically different universals of natural language: Every man is white on the one hand and Man is white, Men are white on the other. The author of these remarks thinks that if Every man is white and Man is white have the same referent, still they have not the same sense.

They have the same referent in so far as they both make known the same reality: the fact that Whatever x may be, if x is a man, then x is white ,in other words, that the quality 'white'is ascribed to the totality of mankind. It goes without saying that when I examine the expressions: Whatever x may be, if x is a man, then x is white, Men are white, All men are white, I'm acting as logician and linguist and that I don't adhere to their obviously false content.

They have not the same sense in so far as they do not contradict the same antithetic proposition. Man is white, Men are white contradicts Man is not white, Men are are not white whereas All men are white (or Everyman is white)contradicts Not all men are white, Some men are not white. The fact that Some men are not white refers to and the fact that Man is not white refers to are different. What we want to explain is this : the sense of an assertive proposition of natural language is made of two elements: its referent of course but also its power to contradict. References:Tract Eight-8,"knol 000" (Jean KemperNN (talk) 13:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)) http://erssab.u-bordeaux3.fr here http://www.grammar-and-logic.com/dossiers.php

About the representation of the third subcontrary U as A v E

(79.90.42.155 (talk) 03:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)) (Jean KemperN (talk) 03:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)) The article presents U as the disjunction A v E. Hence what one finds in the article to represent U analytically by means of modern algoritmic symbolization: (x)(M(x) → W(x)) v (x)(M(x) → ~W(x))The statement U may be interpreted as "Whatever x may be, if x is a man, then x is white or whatever x may be, if x is a man, then x is non-white." I cannot object to the representation of U as a disjunction A v E that is to say (x)(M(x) → W(x)) v (x)(M(x) → ~W(x)) since it is what we find in Structures intellectuelles of Robert Blanché. However in this talk page I want to explain soon why it would be good to translate U by A w E instead of A v E. A w E or (x)( M(x) → W(x)) w ((x) M(x) → ~W(x)) is to be read something like this: One of two things, either Whatever x may be, if x is a man, then x is white or Whatever x may be, if x is a man, then x is NOT white. (Jean KemperN (talk) 12:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC))(Jean KemperN (talk) 14:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)) (Jean KemperN (talk) 15:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC))Bonne année (PESSAC (talk) 21:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC))(Jean KemperN (talk) 06:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)) Je fais des essais pour voir si wikipedia anglophone fait comme wikipedia francophone. (84.100.243.244 (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC))(Jean KemperN (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC))