I saw that in categorical logic the proposition, some $A$ is $B$ is considered to have existential import meaning we assume there exists a particular in class $A$ but the proposition, "All $A$ is $B$ mean that if $A$ is empty" the proposition is true, why is that saying "some unicorns are pink" is a false statement while saying "All unicorns are pink" is a true statement?


The issue of so-called existential import of categorical proposition has a long history.

In modern logic "Some A is B" is symbolized with $\exists x (Ax \land Bx)$ and thus it is true only when there are $A$s and $B$s.

The universal, instead, is symbolized with $\forall x (Ax \to Bx)$ which is true also when there are no $A$s.

[Why] saying "All unicorns are pink" is a true statement?

Because the conditional $Ax \to Bx$ is true when the antecedent $Ax$ is False.

According to Arsitotle's Logic and the so-called Square of Opposition, we have that the universal imples the corresponding particular, but in modern logic the imference:

$\forall x (Ax \to Bx)$, therefore $\exists x (Ax \land Bx)$

is not valid, exactly due to the counter-examples like yours.

For some references, see:


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.