This paper proposes a formalization of the class of sentences quantified by most, which is also interpreted as proportion of or majority of depending on the domain of discourse. We consider sentences of the form "Most A are B ", where A... more
This paper proposes a formalization of the class of sentences quantified by most, which is also interpreted as proportion of or majority of depending on the domain of discourse. We consider sentences of the form "Most A are B ", where A and B are plural nouns and the interpretations of A and B are infinite subsets of N. There are two widely used semantics for Most A are B : (i) C(A ∩ B) > C(A \ B) and (ii) C(A ∩ B) > C(A) 2 , where C(X) denotes the cardinality of a given finite set X. Although (i) is more descriptive than (ii), it also produces a considerable amount of insensitivity for certain sets. Since the quantifier most has a solid cardinal behaviour under the interpretation majority and has a slightly more statistical behaviour under the interpretation proportional of, we consider an alternative approach in deciding quantity-related statements regarding infinite sets. For this we introduce a new semantics using natural density for sentences in which interpretations of their nouns are infinite subsets of N, along with a list of the axiomatization of the concept of natural density. In other words, we take the standard definition of the semantics of most but define it as applying to finite approximations of infinite sets computed to the limit.
Traditional product differentiation occurs when consumers are offered something that is relevant and of perceived value. In contrast, some empirical evidence suggests success is achievable by offering a feature that has ambiguous value or... more
Traditional product differentiation occurs when consumers are offered something that is relevant and of perceived value. In contrast, some empirical evidence suggests success is achievable by offering a feature that has ambiguous value or revealed to be of meaningless value. Previous assessments of such strategies only consider the overall rating of a single differentiated product. However, we argue that feature differentiation strategies should be assessed in environments where the relative value of the feature is considered and compared to trade-offs made on competing features (e.g., price). A theoretical model and experimental approach based on random utility theory and signalling theory is offered. We find meaningless differentiation is meaningless; however, ambiguous differentiation may be successful if contextual signals (e.g., premium pricing; uniqueness) are diagnostic and consistent in suggesting its value.
