Assumption: That one has the most basic ability to understand anything correctly.
Negation: One has no ability to understand anything nor to make any rational decisions whatsoever. One may have a delusion of understanding, but it bears no correlation with truth.
That’s the problem with language. I meant:
∃x such that Px, in the first place, for which the negation is indeed:
∀x ¬Px
Maybe the sentence is ambiguous. I don’t mean “given anything, that one has the most basic ability to understand it”, but “that there is anything that one has the most basic ability to understand”. I would naturally read what I wrote the second way, but I included the negation specifically to make it clear that’s what I meant in the first place.
That seems like a very strange reading. Suppose I wrote “I can find the square root of any number”—does this really only mean that I know that 3*3 = 9?
That isn’t the negation.
¬∀x Px ≡ ∃x ¬Px,
¬∀x Px ≠ ∀x ¬Px.
That’s the problem with language. I meant: ∃x such that Px, in the first place, for which the negation is indeed: ∀x ¬Px
Maybe the sentence is ambiguous. I don’t mean “given anything, that one has the most basic ability to understand it”, but “that there is anything that one has the most basic ability to understand”. I would naturally read what I wrote the second way, but I included the negation specifically to make it clear that’s what I meant in the first place.
That seems like a very strange reading. Suppose I wrote “I can find the square root of any number”—does this really only mean that I know that 3*3 = 9?
Assuming that one has the most basic ability to understand anything [at all] correctly.