Talk:Distribution of terms

This article is not clear. Contextual definitions of "term" and "distributed" should be provided or linked to. kostmo 00:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Is case Some A are not B correct?
The article says that B is distributed in Some A are not B. How is this so? It doesn't seem consistent with the definition of distribution. If you simplify things by identifying a term with its extension, you can think of a (binary) categorical clause  A B as talking about the three sets and it's generally true that A = (A - B) ∪ (A ∩ B) and similarly for B. This should be clear from the Venn diagrams customarily used to depict these relations.
 * 1) A - B
 * 2) A ∩ B
 * 3) B - A,

Using this interpretation, the definition seems to say that a term is distributed with respect to a clause when we can equate the term with one of the two subsets (parts) that the clause partitions it into. For example, A is distributed by a clause of the above form when the clause implies A = A - B or A = A ∩ B. Is this indeed what the definition says or means to say?

If so, consider that
 * All A are B implies A - B is empty, so A = A ∩ B
 * No A are B implies A ∩ B is empty, so A = A - B and B = B - A
 * Some A are B implies A ∩ B is nonempty, which doesn't let you equate A or B with either of their parts.
 * Some A are not B implies A - B is nonempty, which also doesn't let you equate A or B with either of their parts. In fact, this case tells you absolutely nothing about the parts of B, so I can't see why B is distributed with respect to it.

Honestrosewater (talk) 01:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I've noted, at least, that this is sometimes stated as distribution is granted to subjects in universals and predicates in negatives, and that the relevance of distribution was famously criticized by Geach. "Some A are not B" is a focus of attention in these critiques.  —Mrwojo (talk) 17:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)