For the example “Taco is an instance of Mexican food” (A is an instance of B) it does not quite follow that “A is B” (taco is Mexican food) because “taco” fails to encompass the full breadth of “Mexican food,” which also includes “enchilada, tostada”…etc. in this example we cannot go beyond the limit of “is an instance of”. This might be an English language thing but perhaps you can elaborate?
Instances of x don't need to encompass the full breadth of x, they just need to meet the standards of x. So in your example, Mexican food can be defined as food that is originated from Mexico, so Taco is a perfect instance of Mexican food.
Got it, so for our purposes here “is” = “is an instance of”. This is a little different than normal usage where “is an instance of” is always just a subset of the overarching category of which it is only an instance…usually not equivalent.
For the example “Taco is an instance of Mexican food” (A is an instance of B) it does not quite follow that “A is B” (taco is Mexican food) because “taco” fails to encompass the full breadth of “Mexican food,” which also includes “enchilada, tostada”…etc. in this example we cannot go beyond the limit of “is an instance of”. This might be an English language thing but perhaps you can elaborate?
Instances of x don't need to encompass the full breadth of x, they just need to meet the standards of x. So in your example, Mexican food can be defined as food that is originated from Mexico, so Taco is a perfect instance of Mexican food.
Got it, so for our purposes here “is” = “is an instance of”. This is a little different than normal usage where “is an instance of” is always just a subset of the overarching category of which it is only an instance…usually not equivalent.
That's right. Being an instance of something doesn't mean being equivalent to it.