Talk:Plural quantification

Jargon
I've tagged this article as containing too much jargon. For example:


 * "Kaplan proves that it is nonfirstorderizable by showing its second-order translation to be true in every nonstandard model of arithmetic but false in every standard one."
 * "Boolos argued that 2nd-order monadic existential quantification may be systematically interpreted in terms of plural existential quantification, and that, therefore, 2nd-order monadic existential quantification is 'ontologically innocent'".

Whaaaaaaaaatttt? Somebody who understands this stuff (I've used most of the preceding words, but have hardly any clue what they might mean in combination) needs to "tone it down" for idiots like me. :-P Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

As somebody who understands this stuff, I think it's (unfortunately) not reasonable to remove much of the jargon. Much of this article is philosophy, but it is primarily an article about mathematical logic. The difference between first order and second order statements and sentences is very technical, and cannot really be dumbed down. This sort of technical language is necessary for many articles dealing heavily with mathematics, especially when dealing with metamathematics. Jade Vanadium (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Request review
If x is a singular variable symbol and \bar{y} is a plural variable symbol, then x \prec \bar{y} is a sentence (where ≺ is usually interpretted as the relation "is one of") -- I added the parenthetical above, but I am actually not well versed in the subject and so someone with more familiarity should probably review that change and add a more appropriate clarification if this one is not correct. I based my understanding on: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plural-quant/ -- Thanks, LordBrain (forgot password)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.110.50.184 (talk) 08:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)