home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!agate!doc.ic.ac.uk!uknet!edcastle!edcogsci!iad
- From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
- Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
- Subject: Re: quite unique
- Message-ID: <11636@scott.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: 20 Nov 92 14:00:25 GMT
- References: <1992Nov16.143026.23853@news.columbia.edu> <BxuK87.176@ccu.umanitoba.ca> <1992Nov17.181046.21137@nas.nasa.gov> <1992Nov18.192304.15503@nas.nasa.gov>
- Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK
- Lines: 26
-
- In article <1992Nov18.192304.15503@nas.nasa.gov> asimov@wk223.nas.nasa.gov (Daniel A. Asimov) writes:
- >Come to think of it, consider the following two uniquenesses:
- >
- >a) 2 is the unique integer that is an even prime number.
- >
- >b) 1/3 is the unique real number x satisfying the equation 3x = 1.
- >
- >Since there are infinitely more real numbers than integers,
- >perhaps it *does* make sense to say that 1/3 is "more unique"
- >than the number 2, in the above contexts.
-
- Not really. We agree that "unique" means `only one [of a kind]', but
- why should something be called more or less unique just because it was
- selected from a larger or smaller set?
-
- a) 2 is the only integer that is an even prime number.
- b) 1/3 is the only real number x satisfying the equation 3x = 1.
-
- Is 1/3 onlier than 2, or what? :-) (If "more unique" makes sense,
- then so does "onlier", since the two mean the same thing.)
-
- --
- `Haud yer wheesht! Come oot o the man an gie him peace.' (The Glasgow Gospel)
- Ivan A Derzhanski (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk; iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
- * Centre for Cognitive Science, 2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, UK
- * Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
-