Resolving existential import/fallacy

does this help?

Keeping my ear open for fallacy of exclusive (double privative) premises in Prior Analytics).

Still percolating thetic import as yet-existed/acted essence.

Adding to Corcoran:

AuB (C+) is true if and only if …
Ayb (C-) is true if and only if …

(treating contingency like capacity)

Feel free to beat me to it…or point me to whoever/wherever did.

This is also relevant to this thread because the picture also has a little snippet about Boole.

If a term is distributed, and yet it is empty, to what does it distribute? (Regarding the snippet about Boole.)

P.s. Also about Boole. How come Python has “falsy” empty strings…

…contra Boole???

Hunch.

Aristotle did not allow or even conceive of empty terms/categories/sets because he requires existential import (at least one example inhabiting the category/set/term).

Boole acknowledges empty sets do not have existential import. It isn’t that he required categories to be considered as not having existential import—which would be absurd, especially considering universals are distributed to each element/member.

How come I don’t know everything I need to know to answer all of this? I’m sure there are people who do, but they are very poor communicators, or I wouldn’t be here wondering about this right now.

…unless that was their intention.

Methinks my hunch… as well as other hunches … be correct:

This article is a stub:

Crazy. Boole apparently agrees. Read the quotes at the end of the link two replies up.

I feel so validated. Heh.