Associating ontological commitment to Ks with the existentialclaim '∃x Kx' entails that commitment to natural numbers is stronger than commitment to integers, which inverts the correct ordering.
The counting numbers: 1, 2, 3, 4, and so on (sometimes including 0, depending on context).
Ontology(Carnap argues this enterprise is based on a mistake)
The philosophical discipline that tries to answer hard questions about what there really is.
ontological commitment(Used to derive that literal truth of 'a is F' entails existence of a)
The criterion by which acceptance of a sentence as literally true commits one to the existence of the objects referred to by singular terms in that sentence, provided the sentence cannot be paraphrased away.
∃x Kx(as used in formal logic notation)
Symbolic shorthand meaning 'there exists at least one thing that is K.' The ∃ symbol means 'there exists' and x is a placeholder for any thing.
Once one accepts that a “reality” predicate is needed to characterize ontological commitment, a puzzle about the logic of ontological commitment admits of a natural solution. The puzzle is this (from Fine 2009). Because the natural numbers are included within the integers, an ontological commitment to the integers, it seems, should be a stronger commitment than a commitment to the natural numbers. But quantifier accounts of ontological commitment get this backwards: since commitment to Ks is ass