8/8/2019 Mendoza Phil 431 Wa1 1

1/2

8/8/2019 Mendoza Phil 431 Wa1 1

2/2

Mendoza 2

try to represent it in say terms of infinite relations, it will not be possible as the

indexes will run out with predicates such as: scattered, dispersed, etc.

3. The second approach is troublesome to McKay as it shows that the translation is

not really a translation, but rather a "determination". What is trying to be

represented with his example of people and wagons is not being translated but

determined by the second approach. So the problem is essentially that it is not

being translated, but being determined instead, and since, the (or a) determination

is not what is being wanted as a result (what is wanted is a translation), then the

problem is that the process gives the wrong output.

4. He defends it by stating that the main goal is in "preserving the non-distributive

plural reference and avoiding the introduction of singular surrogates". By having

to deal with just that, a theory of relations is not needed. So he does not want a

representation of it, but rather, the it be expressed what it is instead of the help of

a singular surrogate. As it might show a decent representation, but problems can

arise from it that won't in his preservation of the non-distributive plural reference.

5. a - McKay states that it would be worthwhile to explore the limits within the

development of the foundations of higher mathematics within a "first-order plural

formal language". This is important as it not only gives logicians and

mathematicians the task of knowing the limits of that approach towards language,

but also the challenge of knowing when set theory (if at all) is required to give as

an alternative explanation.