More generally, it’s the expression to be defined, as opposed to the definiens, which is the phrase doing the defining. ❋ Unknown (2010)
More generally, it’s the expression to be defined, as opposed to the definiens, which is the phrase doing the defining.beamishQuote ❋ Unknown (2010)
M. Whittaker says: surely verbum definiendum, clausa definiens if you un-distill the sense. ❋ Unknown (2010)
Substituting the definiens of (EDR) into (SUB) then delivers the following principle: ❋ Lowe, E. Jonathan (2009)
(EDX) 's definiens should not be understood as implying that an object x may not dependX for its existence upon two (or more) different things, y and ❋ Lowe, E. Jonathan (2009)
However, the relations corresponding to such predicates are strictly weaker than PP and PE and no biconditional is provable in M that would yield a corresponding definiens of ❋ Unknown (2009)
It would, of course, be easy enough to modify (EDR) 's definiens to read ˜y is not identical with x and, necessarily, x exists only if ❋ Lowe, E. Jonathan (2009)
The definiens in (EDR) is equivalent, of course, to ❋ Lowe, E. Jonathan (2009)
(If we believe in the existence of universals, then we should clearly add to the definiens ˜and universals that are exemplified by x™.) ❋ Lowe, E. Jonathan (2009)
This time, substituting the definiens of (EDR) into (P2) gives us: ❋ Lowe, E. Jonathan (2009)
These languages have no resources for forming compound predicates; hence, the definiens of a homogeneous definition of ❋ Gupta, Anil (2008)
In a heterogeneous definition, however, the definiens can easily be complex; for example, ❋ Gupta, Anil (2008)
But the question must then be raised of how many different exceptions to the original definiens need to be accommodated? ❋ Rosenberg, Alexander (2008)
(Here ˜=™ is placed between a definiendum and a definiens.) ❋ Bimbó, Katalin (2008)
The parts of this definiens are the universals rational and animal. ❋ Cohen, S. Marc (2008)
Since it is an essence, a substantial form is what is denoted by the definiens of a definition. ❋ Cohen, S. Marc (2008)
The problem is this: definitions are complex (a definiens is always some combination of terms), so what accounts for the definiendum being one thing, rather than many (1037b10)? ❋ Cohen, S. Marc (2008)
Consider as a definiendum a universal, such as man, and its definiens, rational animal. ❋ Cohen, S. Marc (2008)
But, if we try to replace F by its definiens in F (F) ¡ ¬F (F), we are trapped into an infinite regress, as there is no F-free expression that could replace F (F). ❋ Cantini, Andrea (2007)
On this view, a definition cannot be true or false; it may be appropriate or helpful, or not, and there are certain proprieties to be observed, such as not having dangling variables in either definiens or definiendum, and not trying to define an expression in terms of itself, but beyond this, the methodological requirements on abbreviation are minimal. ❋ Simons, Peter (2007)
