The next thing is that we're going to talk about the little bit of the limitations in natural languages,
and this was something that Bertrand Russell was thinking a lot about in the early last century and
yet again in such in many cases, the examples that are used are really kind of a little bit funny and
corny.
So they talked a lot about the king of France and whether he was born or not.
So the king of France is bald, is famous quote, used here.
What is that about then?
It is about the natural languages could sometimes be very ambiguous.
So if we think about this sentence.
So the present king of France is bald.
Right.
And obviously it's false.
But if it's false, hence its negation should be true.
But the negation in natural language, like the present king of France is not bald is also false.
So there's something fishy going on here.
So what he thought is that if you're just using natural languages, you can fall into a lot of traps
because you're not explicitly telling out the whole meaning.
So what he coined here is something called definite descriptions and say that to be able to reason about
this and see why the negation.
So you cannot be both true and false.
Right.
So you can see why how this is negated in the correct way.
You need to rewrite this sentence a little bit and write it logically like this.
So if you know logic, you might be able to read the Bible, explain to you what it says.
So there exists an ex such as that X is king of France and for all Y and if Y is also king of France,
then Y equals X and X is more or a little bit more natural language here.
So one, there is an X such that X is presently king of France.
Right.
For any X and Y, if X is presently king of France and Y is presently king of France, then X equals
Y.
So what he was saying here is that could only be one king of France at any given moment.
There cannot be a way in which both are king of France and they're not the same object.
And then three for every X that is presently King of France, X is ball.
That is actually what we logically imply when we're seeing in natural language that the present king
of France is born.
But if we're divided in this way, we definitely directly see that why this is false.
It's not false because the king of France is not bald.
It's false because there is no king of France.
So it's the first condition that fails and not the third one.
So this is also a little bit important.
And I think if you're a programmer, like I'm as I said, of hackers and I was a kid, you see that
as a programmer, you need to think in this way all the time because unfortunately, computers is not
that good at natural languages.
They need to be told very binary what to do.
And this is usually how you need to, for example, write in Eskil SQL Statement or something like that.