Logical correlation from Oedipus myth My girlfriend likes the myths and she found an MIT article about Oedipus myth which is looks interesting for her. She showed me, but for me it is looks like no correlation between the logical formulas. Maybe because is it normalized. 
If you have time guys, please try to describe me. Which are the correlations between the 2 parts of the formula.
The article is here article. The formulas are the following on the second page:
    [∃x: outcome x] [∀y: action y] (If Oedipus were to perform y, then x would come about)
    [∀x: actual outcome x] [∀y: possible action y] (If Oedipus were to perform y,
then x would come about)
    [∀x: actual action x] [∀y: possible choice y] (If Oedipus were to make y,
    then Oedipus would perform x)

I can't understand how [∃x: outcome x] connected with [∀y: action y].
Thanks for your help.
 A: It's not clear exactly what your question is.  Where Holton writes

[∃x: outcome x] [∀y: action y] (If Oedipus were to perform y, then x would come about)

he is expressing something like
$$ \exists x.\left(\mathit{outcome}(x) \land \forall y.( \mathit{action}(y) \to (\mathit{perform}(O,y) > \mathit{happen}(x)) \right)$$
Since Holton's "if … then …" is a counterfactual, I used the connective $>$ instead of the material conditional, $\to$.
By request, here are the other sentences:

[∀x: actual outcome x] [∀y: possible action y] (If Oedipus were to perform y,
  then x would come about)

\begin{multline}
\forall{x}.( \mathit{actualOutcome}(x) \to \\
\forall y.(\mathit{possibleAction}(y) \to \\
(\mathit{perform}(O,y) > \mathit{comeAbout}(x))))
\end{multline}

[∀x: actual action x] [∀y: possible choice y] (If Oedipus were to make y,
      then Oedipus would perform x)

\begin{multline}
\forall{x}.( \mathit{actualAction}(x) \to \\
\forall y.(\mathit{possibleChoice}(y) \to \\
(\mathit{makeChoice}(O,y) > \mathit{perform}(O,x))))
\end{multline}
