Talk:Distribution of terms

This article is not clear. Contextual definitions of "term" and "distributed" should be provided or linked to. kostmo 00:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is case Some A are not B correct?

The article says that B is distributed in Some A are not B. How is this so? It doesn't seem consistent with the definition of distribution. If you simplify things by identifying a term with its extension, you can think of a (binary) categorical clause <quantifier> A <inclusion> B as talking about the three sets

A - B
A ∩ B
B - A,

and it's generally true that A = (A - B) ∪ (A ∩ B) and similarly for B. This should be clear from the Venn diagrams customarily used to depict these relations.

Using this interpretation, the definition seems to say that a term is distributed with respect to a clause when we can equate the term with one of the two subsets (parts) that the clause partitions it into. For example, A is distributed by a clause of the above form when the clause implies A = A - B or A = A ∩ B. Is this indeed what the definition says or means to say?

If so, consider that

All A are B implies A - B is empty, so A = A ∩ B
No A are B implies A ∩ B is empty, so A = A - B and B = B - A
Some A are B implies A ∩ B is nonempty, which doesn't let you equate A or B with either of their parts.
Some A are not B implies A - B is nonempty, which also doesn't let you equate A or B with either of their parts. In fact, this case tells you absolutely nothing about the parts of B, so I can't see why B is distributed with respect to it.

Honestrosewater (talk) 01:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've noted, at least, that this is sometimes stated as distribution is granted to subjects in universals and predicates in negatives, and that the relevance of distribution was famously criticized by Geach. "Some A are not B" is a focus of attention in these critiques. —Mrwojo (talk) 17:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]