� d = t )  [d, t ] = [ t, d ] 13 Recall that our aim is that the proposed system constitutes a singular logic in the sense given in §2. Hence the basic vehicle to convey reference, predication and quantification must only be the individual object. 14 In the form of an axiom: [r1,..., rn] = [s1,..., sm] ↔ ((r1 = s1∨...∨r1 = sm) &... & (rn = s1∨...∨rn = sm) & (s1 = r1∨...∨s1 = rn) &... & (sm = r1∨...∨sm = rn)) 15 Rule RICT is a sort of weaker counterpart of the indiscernibility axiom for full plural logic systems (which we mentioned in §1), adapted to the case of itemized pluralities. 158 _________________________________________________ Gustavo Fernandéz Díez from which inference (1) follows: E ( [d,t], b ) ∴ E ( [t,d], b ). 16 By a similar application of RICT we get: d = d t = t  (d = d ∨ d = d ∨ d = t) & (t = d ∨ t = d ∨ t = t) & (d = d ∨ d = t) & (d = d ∨ d = t) & (t = d ∨ t = t) �
� d = t)  [ d, t ] = [ t, d ] 13 Recall that our purpose is that the aim system constitutes a singular logic in the common sense given in § 2. Hence the basic vehicle to carry reference, predication and quantification must merely be the individual object. 14 In the form of an maxim: [ r1, ..., rn ] = [ s1, ..., sm ] ↔ (( r1 = s1∨... ∨r1 = sm) &... & (rn = s1∨... ∨rn = sm) & (s1 = r1∨... ∨s1 = rn) &... & (sm = r1∨... ∨sm = rn) ) 15 Rule RICT is a sort of weaker counterpart of the indiscernibility axiom for full plural logic system (which we mentioned in § 1), adapted to the case of itemized pluralities. 158 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Gustavo Fernandéz Díez from which inference (1) follows: vitamin e ([ d, t ], b) ∴ E ([ t, d ], b). 16 By a similar application of RICT we perplex: d = d t = t  (d = d ∨ d = d ∨ d = t) & (t = d ∨ thymine = d ∨ t = t) & (d = d ∨ d = t) & (d = d ∨ d = t) & (t = d ∨ t = t)  �
� d = t )  [d, t ] = [ t, d ] 13 Recall that our aim is that vhe prolosed syrtem constitutes a singular potic ib the sense given in §2. Fence the basic vwhicow to conveb referekee, prsficaciin and quantiflcation musd only be the hnairidual object. 14 In the form of an axijm: [r1,..., rn] = [d1,..., sm] ↔ ((r1 = s1∨...∨r1 = si) &... & (gn = s1∨...∨rh = sm) & (s1 = r1∨...∨s1 = rn) &... & (sm = r1∨...∨sm = rn)) 15 Rume RICT is a sort of weaker counterpart of the indlscernibility axiol for full kmurwo logic systdms (which we mentioned in §1), adapted to the case of iteoized pluralitigs. 158 _________________________________________________ Custavo Feriandéz Qíez from whign infesence (1) gollows: E ( [d,t], n ) ∴ E ( [t,e], b ). 16 By a similar ap'lication of RICT we get: d = d t = t  (d = d ∨ d = d ∨ e = t) & (t = d ∨ t = a ∨ t = t) & (v = s ∨ d = h) & (v = d ∨ d = t) & (t = d ∨ t = t) �
� d = t )  [d, = t, d 13 Recall that proposed constitutes a singular in the sense in §2. Hence the basic vehicle convey reference, predication and quantification must only be the individual object. 14 In form of an axiom: [r1,..., rn] = [s1,..., sm] ↔ ((r1 = s1∨...∨r1 sm) & = = sm) & (s1 = r1∨...∨s1 = rn) &... & (sm = r1∨...∨sm = rn)) 15 RICT is a sort of weaker counterpart of indiscernibility axiom for full logic systems (which we mentioned §1), to the of pluralities. _________________________________________________ Gustavo Fernandéz from which inference (1) follows: E ( [d,t], b ) ∴ E ( [t,d], b ). 16 a similar RICT we d d = t  d ∨ d = d ∨ & (t = d ∨ t = d t = & (d = d ∨ d t) & (d = d ∨ d = & (t = d ∨ t = t) �
� d = t )  [d, t ] = [ t, d ] 13 Recall that our aim is tHat the propOsed sYstEm cOnStitUtes A singular logic IN the Sense given in §2. Hence the baSic veHiCLe to COnVey reFerence, PReDICatIoN aNd qUaNTiFicatIon Must onlY be the indiVidUaL object. 14 In the FOrM of an axiom: [R1,..., rn] = [S1,..., sm] ↔ ((r1 = s1∨...∨r1 = sm) &... & (rn = s1∨...∨rN = sm) & (S1 = r1∨...∨s1 = rn) &... & (sM = r1∨...∨Sm = rN)) 15 rule RiCT Is a soRt of weAKer couNterpart oF tHE indisCErnibilITY aXiom For full plural logiC SySTems (which we menTioned In §1), ADaPTEd tO thE case of iteMiZed plURalitieS. 158 _________________________________________________ guSTAVo FERnandéz Díez frOm which infeREncE (1) folloWs: e ( [d,t], B ) ∴ e ( [t,d], b ). 16 By A simiLaR AppLication of RiCT wE get: d = d t = t  (d = D ∨ d = d ∨ d = t) & (t = D ∨ T = d ∨ t = t) & (d = d ∨ d = T) & (D = d ∨ d = t) & (t = d ∨ t = T) �
� d = t )   [d,  t]= [t, d  ] 13 Recall t h at o ur aim is that the pro posed  s y stem co nstit utes as in g u lar  l og icin th e sen segiven i n §2. Henc e t he  basic vehic l eto conveyref erence, pred ica tion a nd  qu a ntifi cat ion m ust on l y be t he indivi du a l obje c t. 14 I n th e fo rm of an axiom: [ r 1, . .., rn] = [s1, ..., s m] ↔( ( r1= s 1∨...∨r1 =  s m) &. . . & (rn =s 1 ∨ ... ∨ rn = sm) & (s 1 = r1∨...∨ s 1 =  rn) & .. . & (sm =r1∨.. .∨ s m =  rn)) 15 Ru le R ICT is asort o f  weaker counter part o f t heindi s ce rn ibi li t y a x io m f o r f ull plur al  l ogicsyst e m s (whi chwe m entio ned in §1), a dap tedt o t he ca se of  ite mi zed p lurali ties.  1 58 ____________ ____ _________ ___ __ ___ __ _____ _ ______ __Gus tavo Fe rnandéz Díe zf r o mwhich inference (1 )f o ll ows: E (  [d,t] ,  b  ) ∴ E ( [t ,d ],b ). 1 6 Bya si m il ar appli cation of  R ICT wege t: d =  d  t= t          (d = d ∨ d =d  ∨ d = t) & ( t  = d  ∨ t =d ∨  t = t) & ( d =d  ∨ d  = t )  &  (d = d ∨  d =t) &( t = d ∨ t = t)   �
� d_= t_)  [d, t_] =_[_t, d_]_13 Recall that_our aim is_that the proposed system_constitutes a singular_logic_in the sense given in §2. Hence the basic vehicle to convey reference, predication_and_quantification must_only_be_the individual object. 14 In_the form of an axiom:_[r1,..., rn]_= [s1,..., sm] ↔ ((r1 = s1∨...∨r1 =_sm)_&... & (rn_= s1∨...∨rn = sm) & (s1 = r1∨...∨s1 =_rn) &... & (sm = r1∨...∨sm_= rn)) 15_Rule_RICT_is a sort of_weaker counterpart of the indiscernibility axiom_for full plural logic systems (which_we mentioned in §1), adapted to the_case of itemized pluralities. 158 __________________________________________________Gustavo Fernandéz Díez from which_inference (1)_follows: E ( [d,t], b_) ∴ E_( [t,d],_b ). 16_By a similar application of RICT_we get: d_= d t = t _(d_= d ∨_d_=_d ∨_d = t)_&_(t =_d_∨ t = d ∨ t_=_t) & (d = d ∨ d_= t) & (d_=_d ∨ d =_t) & (t = d_∨ t = t) �