Post ACvrpJkJMm1gsFE5Tc by hex@mathstodon.xyz
 (DIR) More posts by hex@mathstodon.xyz
 (DIR) Post #ACvn845BKKyO1g6lvc by brandon@fosstodon.org
       2021-10-31T17:56:39Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       When you're saying that a large subset of a group (of objects or people) do not have XYZ quality do you say:
       
 (DIR) Post #ACvnGV8Sd3LyFIfH9M by markusl@fosstodon.org
       2021-10-31T17:58:27Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @brandon Not every sheep is white: there are some black sheep.Every sheep is not turquoise: there are no turquoise sheep.  (Not unless someone has done something cruel with a spray can, at any rate.)
       
 (DIR) Post #ACvnQB02Lf7mgvL1Jw by brandon@fosstodon.org
       2021-10-31T18:00:13Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @markusl Trust me, I'm of the "Not every(thing/one) is" but I've heard the latter so often I've begun to question it. On the English Stackexchange the conclusion has become "it doesn't matter" but I feel wholeheartedly that it matters to reduce ambiguity
       
 (DIR) Post #ACvrpJkJMm1gsFE5Tc by hex@mathstodon.xyz
       2021-10-31T18:49:32Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @brandon In this situation, I think the difference is between some things being false and all things being false. If you define the subset M of all things, and all of M is false, then the is no difference between saying "some things are false" and "all M are false" because M is already defined as the subset of all things that are false.