So now y wins with a majority, nine to six.
Thus, given ‘x=x’, we have ‘∃y(y=x)’.
Hence the Proposition “No x are y” means “Some x exist, and none of them are y”: i.e.
As y increases, the point moves further up, away from the x and y meeting point, and when y decreases, the point moves down again.
That is, each triple ⟨ x, y, f⟩ is a morphism from x to y.
Then by Conditional Reflexivity, y is exactly located at y.
For any x, y ∈ X, xRy means that x is socially weakly preferred to y.
I cannot mistake X for Y unless I am able to formulate thoughts about X and Y.
But y, too has S. y must therefore have P as well and, hence, y=x (Leftow, 199–200).
It follows from this definition, of course, that, if each individual prefers x to y then x is socially better than y.
That is, let CC(x,y) denote the common causes of x and y, and PC(x) and PC(y) denote respectively their partial causes.
For any two entities x and y, if x constitutes the very nature of y and y constitutes the very nature of x, then they are identical.
An L-formula is called a Δ0-formula if it is equivalent to a formula in which all quantifiers are of the form ∀x∈y or ∃x∈y (i.e., ∀x(x∈y → …) or ∃x(x∈y ∧ …)).
They entail, for example, that (given the assumptions of the theorems) knowing only the probability distribution on two variables X and Y, we can infer whether X causes Y or Y causes X.
Spanish bayonet (Y. aloifolia), Spanish dagger (Y. gloriosa), and Adam’s needle (Y. filamentosa) are commonly cultivated as ornamentals for their unusual appearance and attractive flower clusters.
Spanish bayonet (Y. aloifolia), Spanish dagger (Y. gloriosa), and Adam’s needle, or bear grass (Y. filamentosa), are commonly grown as ornamentals to showcase their unusual appearance and attractive flower clusters.
McCain proposes an interventionist account of causation according to which (roughly) X causes Y if and only if were a change in X to occur, Y would change in a regular way (setting aside any other redundant causes of Y).
Independence of irrelevant alternatives: For any two profiles
To see how these control-based and choice-based notions diverge, consider a Frankfurtian scenario in which Y comes about as a result of X’s choice, but X did not control whether Y came about because had X not chosen to bring about Y, then Y would have been realized through some alternative causal means (Frankfurt 1988).
Thus, the Diagram, here given, exhibits the two Classes, whose respective Attributes are x and y, as so related to each other that the following Propositions are all simultaneously true:—“All x are y”, “No x are not-y”, “Some x are y”, “Some y are not-x”, “Some not-y are not-x”, and, of course, the Converses of the last four.
On this page, there are 20 sentence examples for y. They are all from high-quality sources and constantly processed by lengusa's machine learning routines.
Just use the " " button to fragment sentence examples and start your learning flow.
Example output from one of your searches:
Thus the Diagram here given exhibits the two Classes whose respective Attributes are x and y as so related to each other that the following Propositions are all simultaneously true—All x are y No x are not-y Some x are y Some y are not-x Some not-y are not-x and of course the Converses of the last four