quantifier

Num a => a However, this doesn't work, since the quantifier now ranges over types that were not in the range of the original quantifier.

Idris has a quantifier which is called Pi in type theory, and this is not the same as Forall (the quantifier present in Haskell and ML).

In this case when finding the last match from the end, would the lazy quantifier reduce backtracking?

Can someone explain why the whole thing isn't simply the abuse of the universal quantifier?

Given the universal quantifier, one would assume that ESR meant security bugs here as well.

I'd expect the quantifier to take the predicate as an argument, rather than the other way around.

We often find that students have difficulties with quantifier alternations (there exists x, such that for all y, there exists z, such that...).

I was thinking everyone would just be data rather (a list of people or something) rather than a quantifier function.

There is an implicit quantifier in the phrase 'sell their freedom'.

The term, which apparently lexicalized from (a) hell of (a), functions as both a quantifier (There were hella people there) and an intensifier (He runs hella fast).

First of all, classical logic doesn't have any well- developed notion of time or dynamics, and it has a nasty existential quantifier which assumes that all things exist once and for all.

I would object to both claims, because you, very much like Watson, seem to not grasp the idea that you can not simply drop a quantifier and assume people will interpret it as 'on average', this is simply not how the English language works.

The VIP is just a potentially meaningless quantifier, some sites like to say "our members our very important people to us."

Since the concept behind the gold standard means "gold always..." - a universal quantifier, one needs only show a counterexample to blow it out of the water.

It'll disprove a genuine universal statement of the kind that can be expressed with a "∀x" quantifier.

But when you have an internal quantifier (the "forall int i") above, proof gets harder.

Quantifier scope ambiguity (do you get quant raising, basically) 6.