We firstly show that the standard interpretation of natural quantification in mathematical logic does not provide a satisfying account of its original richness. In particular, it ignores the difference between generic and distributive readings. We claim that it is due to the use of a set theoretical framework. We therefore propose a proof theoretical treatment in terms of proofs and refutations. Thereafter we apply these ideas to quantifiers that are not first order definable like "the majority …
Read moreWe firstly show that the standard interpretation of natural quantification in mathematical logic does not provide a satisfying account of its original richness. In particular, it ignores the difference between generic and distributive readings. We claim that it is due to the use of a set theoretical framework. We therefore propose a proof theoretical treatment in terms of proofs and refutations. Thereafter we apply these ideas to quantifiers that are not first order definable like "the majority of".
