Skip to main content
Log in

Natural Density and the Quantifier “Most”

  • Published:
Journal of Logic, Language and Information Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper proposes a formalization of the class of sentences quantified by most, which is also interpreted as proportion of or majority of depending on the domain of discourse. We consider sentences of the form “Most A are B”, where A and B are plural nouns and the interpretations of A and B are infinite subsets of \( \mathbb {N} \). There are two widely used semantics for Most A are B: (i) \(C(A \cap B) > C(A\setminus B) \) and (ii) \( C(A\cap B) > \dfrac{C(A)}{2} \), where C(X) denotes the cardinality of a given finite set X. Although (i) is more descriptive than (ii), it also produces a considerable amount of insensitivity for certain sets. Since the quantifier most has a solid cardinal behaviour under the interpretation majority and has a slightly more statistical behaviour under the interpretation proportional of, we consider an alternative approach in deciding quantity-related statements regarding infinite sets. For this we introduce a new semantics using natural density for sentences in which interpretations of their nouns are infinite subsets of \( \mathbb {N} \), along with a list of the axiomatization of the concept of natural density. In other words, we take the standard definition of the semantics of most but define it as applying to finite approximations of infinite sets computed to the limit.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Black, M. (1945). A new method of presentation of the theory of the syllogism. The Journal of Philosophy, 42(17), 449–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bocharov, V. A. (1986). Boolean algebra and syllogism. Synthese, 66(1), 35–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buck, R. C. (1953). Generalized asymptotic density. American Journal of Mathematics, 75(2), 335–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cantor, G. (1955). Contributions to the founding of the theory of transfinite numbers. New York: Dover.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, J. (2016). Aristotelian infinites. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, 51, 161–206. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198795797.003.0005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corcoran, J. (1972). Completeness of an ancient logic. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 37(4), 696–702.

  • Corcoran, J. (1973). Gaps between logical theory and mathematical practice. In M. Bunge (Ed.), The methodological unity of science. Theory and decision library (An international series in the philosophy and methodology of the social and behavioral sciences) (Vol. 3). Dordrecht: Springer.

  • D’Alfonso, D. (2012). The square of opposition and generalized quantifiers. In J. Y. Béziau, & D. Jacquette (Eds.), Around and beyond the square of opposition. Studies in universal logic. Basel: Springer.

  • Endrullis, J., & Moss, L. S. (2015). Syllogistic logic with “most”. International workshop on logic, language, information, and computation (pp. 124–139). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Frege, G. (1879). Begriffsschrift, a formula language, modeled upon that of arithmetic, for pure thought. In From Frege to Gödel: A source book in mathematical logic, in Section II, pp. 28–51, 1931 Edition, 1–82.

  • Green, B., & Tao, T. (2008). The primes contain arbitrarily long arithmetic progressions. Annals of Mathematics, 167, 481–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grekos, G. (2005). On various definitions of density (survey). Tatra Mountains Mathematical Publications, 31, 17–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hackl, M. (2009). On the grammar and processing of proportional quantifiers: Most versus more than half. Natural Language Semantics, 17(1), 63–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hintikka, J. (1973). Aristotelian infinity. Philosophical Review, 75(1996), 197–212, reprinted in his Time and Necessity Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 114–134.

  • Krynicki, M., & Mostowski, M. (1999). Ambiguous quantifiers. In E. Orłowska (Ed.), Logic at work (pp. 548–565). Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lear, J. (1979). Aristotelian infinity. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 80, 187–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Łukasiewicz, J. (1957). Aristotle’s syllogistic (2nd ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moss, L. S. (2006). Applied logic: A manifesto. In D. M. Gabbay, S.S. Goncharov, & M. Zakharyaschev (Eds.), Mathematical problems from applied logic I. International mathematical series (Vol. 4). New York, NY: Springer.

  • Moss, L. S. (2008). Completeness theorems for syllogistic fragments. Logics for Linguistic Structures, 29, 143–173.

  • Moss, L. S. (2010a). Syllogistic logics with verbs. Journal of Logic and Computation, 20(4), 947–967.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moss, L. S. (2010b). Intersecting adjectives in syllogistic logic. In C. Ebert, G. Jäger, & J. Michaelis (Eds.), The mathematics of language. MOL 2009, MOL 2007. Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 6149). Berlin: Springer.

  • Moss, L. (2011). Syllogistic logic with complements. In J. van Benthem, A. Gupta, & E. Pacuit (Eds.), Games, norms and reasons. Synthese library (Studies in epistemology, logic, methodology, and philosophy of science) (Vol. 353). Dordrecht: Springer.

  • Moss, L. S. (2016). Syllogistic logic with cardinality comparisons. In K. Bimbó (Ed.), J. Michael Dunn on information based logics (pp. 391–415). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Moss, L. S., & Topal, S. (2018). Syllogistic logic with cardinality comparisons, on infinite sets. The Review of Symbolic Logic,. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755020318000126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niven, I. (1951). The asymptotic density of sequences. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 57(6), 420–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niven, I., & Zuckerman, H. S. (1980). An Introduction to the theory of numbers. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peirce, C. S. (1880). On the algebra of logic. American Journal of Mathematics, 3(1), 15–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pratt-Hartmann, I., & Moss, L. S. (2009). Logics for the relational syllogistic. The Review of Symbolic Logic, 2(04), 647–683.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schumann, A. (2013). On two squares of opposition: The Lesniewskis style formalization of synthetic propositions. Acta Analytica, 28(1), 71–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schumann, A., & Adamatzky, A. (2015). Physarum polycephalum diagrams for syllogistic systems. IfCoLog Journal of Logics and their Applications, 2(1), 35–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumann, A., & Akimova, L. (2015). Syllogistic system for the propagation of parasites. The case of Schistosomatidae (Trematoda: Digenea). Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric, 40(53), 303–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sher, G. (1990). Ways of branching quantifiers. Linguistics and Philosophy, 13(4), 393–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sher, G. (1996). Semantics and Logic. In S. Lappin (Ed.), The handbook of contemporary semantic theory (pp. 509–535). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sher, G. (2012). Logical quantifiers. In D. GraffFara & G. Russell (Eds.), Routledge companion to philosophy of language (pp. 579–595). Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smiley, T. (1973). What is a syllogism? Journal of Philosophical Logic, 2, 136–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sonnenschein, D. J. (1978). A general theory of asymptotic density (Doctoral dissertation, Science: Department of Mathematics, Simon Fraser University).

  • Sotirov, V. (1999). Arithmetizations of syllogistic a la Leibniz. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics, 9(2–3), 387–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, B. (1982). Syllogisms using few, many, and most. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 23(1), 75–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Benthem, J. (1985). Generalized quantifiers in natural language (Vol. 4). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eijck, J. (1985). Generalized quantifiers and traditional logic. In A. Ter Meulen & J. van Benthem (Eds.), Generalized quantifiers (pp. 1–19). Dordrecht: Foris Publications. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110867909.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • van Eijck, J. (2005). Syllogistics= monotonicity+ symmetry+ existential import, preprint May.

  • van Eijck, J. (2015). Natural logic for natural language. In International Tbilisi symposium on logic, language, and computation. Berlin: Springer.

  • van Rooij, R. (2010). Extending syllogistic reasoning. In M. Aloni, H. Bastiaanse, T. de Jager, & K. Schulz (Eds.), Logic, language and meaning. Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 6042). Berlin: Springer.

  • Westerståhl, D. (1987). Branching generalized quantifiers and natural language. In P. Gärdenfors (Ed.), Generalized quantifiers. Studies in linguistics and philosophy (Formerly synthese language library) (Vol. 31). Dordrecht: Springer.

  • Westerståhl, D. (2007). Quantifiers in formal and natural languages. In D. Gabbay, & F. Guenthner (Eds.), Handbook of philosophical logic. Handbook of philosophical logic (Vol. 14). Dordrecht: Springer.

  • Zadeh, L. A. (1983). A computational approach to fuzzy quantifiers in natural languages. Computers & Mathematics with Applications, 9(1), 149–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zadeh, L. A. (1984). A computational theory of dispositions. In Proceedings of the 10th international conference on computational linguistics and 22nd annual meeting on association for computational linguistics (pp. 312–318). Association for Computational Linguistics.

  • Zadeh, L. A. (1988). Fuzzy logic. Computer, 21(4), 83–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Lawrence S. Moss, John Corcoran and Georges Grekos for many useful discussions and patiently answering our questions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Conceptualization, ST; Methodology, ST; Investigation, ST; Validation, ST and AÇ; Resources, ST and AÇ; Writing-Original Draft Preparation, ST; Writing-Review and Editing, ST and AÇ.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Selçuk Topal.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Topal, S., Çevik, A. Natural Density and the Quantifier “Most”. J of Log Lang and Inf 29, 511–523 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10849-019-09312-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10849-019-09312-4

Keywords

Mathematics Subject Classification

Navigation