So if “all my hats” doesn’t imply that I have at least one hat, “some of my hats” doesn’t imply it either; otherwise we wouldn’t be able to derive “some” from “all”.
Hence, “some of my hats are green” doesn’t imply that “at least one of my hats is green”. That’s a claim that contradicts both traditional formal logic interpretation and common sense English interpretation.
I think the same of your interpretation of some vs all. Some can contain all, just as it contains none. Both some/all imply, but do not assert existence. Claiming it tautologically defies logic is not compelling.
Well, I think showing that it defies logical inference is quite relevant in the context of that thread being about translating typical English into first order logic to do logical inference.
I worry about sets and consideration of edge cases. Legal, programmatic, medical. Adhering to a convention that presupposes meaning and claim that interpretation is the only interpretation, cannot be resolved with repetition. I remain unconvinced.
You were the one to claim the only interpretation (in opposite of OP who merely claimed "typical English" interpretation). Moreover, your interpretation directly contradicts both conventional typical English interpretation, which would be relevant in legal context (where making such claims with empty set in mind would be deemed misleading), and conventional formal-logical interpretation, which would be relevant in programming (where the truth of `array.every()` doesn't imply the truth of `array.some()`).
