OMG! I love the culprit! 14/10

The recording of this week's talk, by Palak Jain (@thepalakjain.bsky.social), is now available online as well along with the slides:

"Enforcing Demographic Coherence: A Harms-Aware Framework for Reasoning about Private Data Release"
www.tcsplus.org/welcome/past...

I also find it interesting that, when kids are learning about primary colours in school, it's presented as some fundamental truth about the wider universe and not merely a quirk about how our eyes work.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Finally,

"A non-negligible fraction of single ladies. (A non-negligible fraction of single ladies.)
A non-negligible fraction of single ladies. (A negligible fraction of single ladies.)

There exists C >0 such that for sufficiently large n, at least |SL|/n^C SLs must put HU and have property B.

"A negligible fraction of single ladies. (A negligible fraction of single ladies.)
A negligible fraction of single ladies. (A negligible fraction of single ladies.)

For any constant C and sufficiently large security parameter n, fewer than |SL|/n^C SLs must put HU and have property B.

Now, more quantitative quantifiers:

"A majority of single ladies. (A majority of single ladies.)
A majority of single lady. (A majority of single ladies.)"

At least half of all SLs both (1) must put their HU and (2) have property B. Whether this is true for more SLs is ambiguous.

An even sadder quantifier is next 😢:

"There exists a unique single lady. (There exists a unique single lady.)
There exists a unique single lady. (There exists a unique single lady.)"

Only ONE SL puts her hands up. If one likes this SL, one must PAROI. Other SLs: hands down, liked, but no ring.

Next, we have a rather sad quantifier:

"There exists a single lady. (There exists a single lady.)
There exists a single lady. (There exists a single lady.)
..."

Here, Beyonce is content to talk about just one SL, who must put her HU and if you like her PAROI. Other SLs' hands and rings are ignored

In the actual song, Beyonce wisely uses the for all quantifier, stating.

"All the single ladies. (All the single ladies.)
All the single ladies. (All the single ladies.)
..."

B is talking about *every* SL. No SL is left out. All must put their HU and all have property B: if liked, one must PAROI.

First, some preliminaries. Recall that in her excellent song, Beyonce calls on single ladies (SL) to put their hands up (HU) and declares that if one likes an SL, one must put a ring on it (PAROI).

If an SL is such that if one likes her one must PAROI, let us say that she has property B.

It's crazy to me that some people apparently prefer numeric citations. I spend sooo much time thinking "wait, which one was [13] again?"