Talk:Uniqueness quantification

Mathematics Start‑class Low‑priority

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-priority on the project's priority scale.

Philosophy: Logic Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic

Uniquity or Uniquitive? Either of these terms a better choice than Uniqueness? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.207.133.114 (talk) 18:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uniqueness irrespective of existence[edit]

"Existence/expressibility must be proven before uniqueness" — Really? No; uniqueness means "at most one such object" and is well-defined separately from existence that means "at least one such object". It is legitimate to prove uniqueness assuming the existence of those two quantities to begin with; indeed, if existence fails then uniqueness cannot be violated, anyway! And we mathematicians do so routinely. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

-- No, you are incorrect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.21.239 (talk) 22:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of course you are correct, Boris. I noticed this as well and rewrote the example so that it no longer states this (among other changes). —Toby Bartels (talk) 16:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

negation[edit]

should add negation of unique existential quantification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.149.51.165 (talk) 21:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]