Opposite of exactly one 
Express in logical form: There is exactly one person John likes. 

Doing this out we can write it using the "There is exactly one" quantifier $\exists!$. Letting $L(x,y)$: $x$ likes $y$. This can be written as $\exists!xL(J,x)$. After seeing this I was wondering how we can negate it. If we were to not use the "There is exactly one" quantifiers it would become $\exists x\forall y(L(J,x)\land\lnot (L(J,y)\land y\neq x))$ Then if I were to negate it all we get $\forall x\exists y(\lnot L(J,x)\lor (L(J,y)\land y\neq x))$ Which to me reads as,  John does not like everyone or John likes at least one person, and that person is not $x$. The negation that I have seems to lose the fact that John likes more than one person, regardless of if that person is $x$ or not. So how would I go about negating this statement? Is there a quantifier that is the opposite of $\exists!$?
 A: The negation is correct, though the way you wrote it obfuscates the meaning. I believe the statements are equivalent, but the way you wrote it is less clear. For $\exists!xL(J,x)$, I'd write it as $\exists x(L(J,x)\land \forall y(L(J,y)\implies x=y))$. This gives a negation of $\forall x(\neg L(J,x)\lor \exists y(L(J,y)\land x\neq y))$.
You can then read this as, "For every person, either John doesn't like them, or John likes them and somebody else. Hence, if the second case is ever achieved (John likes that person and another person), then there is no unique person than John likes. If the second case is never achieved, then it is always the first case (John doesn't like that person), so John likes nobody, and so there exists no person that John likes,  much less a unique one.
EDIT: fleablood's comment explains your question about your own sentence. If John likes no people, then he certain doesn't like a unique person. If there is somebody he likes, say that person is $z$, then $z$ must satisfy $\exists y(\neg L(J,z)\lor (L(J,y)\land y\neq z))$. Since John likes $z$, the first part of the "or" statement cannot be satisfied, so the second must be, meaning John likes another person who is not $z$. Either way of writing the statement and its negation is accurate.
