易到司机排队提现 被爆提现困难司机纷纷不愿接单

Question

I am currently reading "On Interpretation" by Aristotle, and in the section 7 there is the following statement:

If, however, both predicate and subject are distributed, the proposition thus constituted is contrary to truth; no affirmation will, under such circumstances, be true. The proposition ‘every man is every animal’ is an example of this type.

From what I understand all-to-all mappings are not possible. Is this generally considered to be true? For example, what about "every rainbow is every color"?

Answer 1

There's an ambiguity in the term 'is' that we should be wary of. "X is Y" can be taken to mean:

• "Object X is a member of class Y", or…
• "Object X is imbued with property Y"

"Every man is every animal" is of the first type, while "every rainbow is every color" is of the second. You can usually see this if you replace the subject term 'every' with 'each', i.e.:

• "Each man is every animal" is obviously nonsense, because it's trying to say that each man is a member of every animal class
• "Each rainbow is every color" makes perfect sense, because it's saying that each rainbow has the property of containing every color.

Answer 2

If every element of the domain maps to every element of the range, you don't have a function, you have a relation, which is a superset of the functions.

Functions may be injective, bijective or surjective, but they always map one element of the range onto one element of the domain.

The concept of a relation is completely legitimate, but it's not a function.

Here