interpretation

[Seiichi MYOGA]

Could you help me with this?

(1) No two things can be so unlike that they do not share the elemental act of existence. (D. Q. McInerny, Being Logical)
(2) All things share the elemental act of existence, no matter how unlike they may be.

I think (1) really means (2). Do you agree?
Thank you in advance.

Seiichi MYOGA

[Lucretia]

I do. I am not too good at logic, though.

[Seiichi MYOGA]

Dear Lucretia,

I really appreciate your help.

Seiichi MYOGA

[Bridget]

Could you help me with this?

(1) No two things can be so unlike that they do not share the elemental act of existence. (D. Q. McInerny, Being Logical)
(2) All things share the elemental act of existence, no matter how unlike they may be.

I think (1) really means (2). Do you agree?
Thank you in advance.

Seiichi MYOGA

I'd say the second one is slightly different. No matter how unlike, can mean they can be totally unlike. The first sentence says that things can never be totally unlike.

[Seiichi MYOGA]

Dear Bridget,

I appreciate your help and comments.

I have a lot of trouble rephrasing the part of "so unlike" in (1).

(1) No two things can be so unlike that they do not share the elemental act of existence. (D. Q. McInerny, Being Logical)

I think (1) may mean sharing the elemental act of existence can't be prevented by excess unlikeness. "not... by excess X" usually means "No limit exists for being X." But if the case of being 100% unlike needs to be excluded in this context, then what (1) really means should be that "All things share the elemental act of existence, though they may be very unlike."

Now do you agree?

Seiichi MYOGA

[Bridget]

I agree with that.

No two elephants can be so unlike that they cannot not share the label of pachyderm.

??

No two cars can be so unlike that they cannot share being called a form of transport.

No two paellas can be so unlike that they can escape being described as Spanish.

[Seiichi MYOGA]

Dear Bridget,

I really appreciate your help and comments.

"Escape" in one of your examples reminds me of something that Geoffrey K. Pullum and Mark Liberman say. You might want to look here (http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/000477.html)
and here (http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/000475.html).

Your examples are too challenging to me, so I'll chew what I've learned so far before going back to them. Thank you again.

Seiichi MYOGA

[Bridget]

You're welcome.