Our panel of 91 professional philosophers has responded to

27
questions about
43
questions about
75
questions about
151
questions about
2
questions about
1275
questions about
221
questions about
208
questions about
153
questions about
116
questions about
68
questions about
31
questions about
70
questions about
5
questions about
169
questions about
285
questions about
110
questions about
88
questions about
88
questions about
4
questions about
243
questions about
67
questions about
79
questions about
371
questions about
105
questions about
283
questions about
1
questions about
32
questions about
23
questions about
124
questions about
96
questions about
2
questions about
77
questions about
54
questions about
24
questions about
51
questions about
282
questions about
58
questions about
392
questions about
218
questions about
134
questions about
69
questions about
573
questions about
81
questions about
36
questions about
75
questions about
107
questions about
39
questions about
34
questions about
58
questions about

Question of the Day

### Suppose S is the set of all

Suppose S is the set of all things that are blue or green. Then my mug is in S because it's green and therefore satisfies "x is blue or x is green," and my pen is in the set S because it's blue and therefore satisfies "x is blue or x is green." Now it's true: satisfying "x is blue or x is green" picks out only one set: the set of all things that satisfy "x is blue or x is green." But the condition "x is green" is a different condition, and so is "x is blue."

However: when you say "being blue or green cannot be the reason why any other object is in any other set," there's an ambiguity. That could be read as "being blue cannot be the reason why an object is in any other set and being green cannot be the reason why an object is in any other set." In that case, however, it's false. Being green, and hence satisfying "x is green" puts my mug in the set G of all green things, and in the set S of all things that are either green or blue—that satisfy "x is green or x is blue." These two sets are not the same. One is a proper subset of the other. Being in the set S doesn't entail being in the set G, and also doesn't entail being in the set B, though it does entail being in either G or B.

The key is to formulate the membership condition so that there's no room for ambiguity. We have

o is in S if and only if o satisfies "x is green or x is blue."
o is in G if and only if o satisfies "x is green"
o is in B if and only if o satisfies "x is blue"

These are three different conditions that pick out three different sets. G and B are disjoint from one another and are proper subsets of S. The union of G and B is S. But the formulation "x is green or blue," while not wrong, masks the fact that "x is green or blue" amounts to "x is green or x is blue," and so is the disjunction (the "or") of two conditions. An object is in S if it satisfies either of those conditions. It's in G only if it satisfies the first, and in B only if it satisfies the second. But clearly by virtue of satisfying one condition ("x is green") my mug can be in S and also in G.