[Attempto] or is interpreted as inclusive or , or xor?

[Kaarel Kaljurand]

Hi,

On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 16:40, Gabriele Kahlout
<gabriele at mysimpatico.com> wrote:
> The paraphrase for the first solution is:
>
> If something X1 is inserted then something X2 is inserted and it is false
> that there is a thing and it is false that X2 is X1.
>
> This doesn't sound correct at all.

Yes, (1) gives an unintended formula.

(1) For everything X that is a:inserted there is no thing Y such that
Y is a:inserted, and Y is not X.

Instead, one should say (2), (3), (4) or something in these lines:

(2) For everything X that is a:inserted nothing Y that is not X is a:inserted.
(3) For everything X that is a:inserted it is false that Y is
a:inserted and that Y is not X.
(4) If X is a:inserted then it is false that Y is a:inserted and that
Y is not X.

The problem with (1) is the combination of 'no' and 'such that',
consider e.g. (5):

(5) There is nothing X such that X waits.

which is interpreted in the same way as (6) and (7)

(6) There is nothing X and X waits.
(7) Y waits. There is nothing.

Maybe the ACE-interpretation of (1) and (5) should be changed to avoid
the potential misunderstanding.

--
kaarel