A proper subset relation grounded solely in non-constructive existence proofs may be ontologically deficient in ways that undermine the modal force of 'always' in the original claim.
?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.
Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.
Dealing with possibility and necessity—questions about what could be true, what must be true, and what's merely contingent (could go either way).
modal force(as used in modal logic)
The power or strength of a statement about necessity, possibility, or contingency—what makes something 'must be' versus 'might be'.
non-constructive existence proof(in mathematical logic)
A proof that proves something exists without actually showing you how to find or build it—like proving a solution exists without explaining how to find it.