From Wikipedia:
<Wikipedia>
For any two related concepts, A and B; A is considered a generalization of concept B if and only if:
* every instance of concept B is also an instance of concept A; and
* there are instances of concept A which are not instances of concept B.
</Wikipedia>
Let A be the statement "If N is a positive integer and sqrt(N) is not an integer, then N is irrational" and B be the statement "If N is a positive integer having value 3, 5, 6, or 7, then sqrt(N) is odd".
Then every statement of B is also an instance of concept A (since 3,5,6, and 7 are positive integers) , and there exist instances of concept A (i.e., positive integers whose square roots are not integers) that are not instances of concept B. Then statement A is a generalization of concept B.
If anyone sees any serious flaws with the above reasoning, please point them out.
What
>>3 etc. did was "specify" (i.e. define) the general rule for determining whether the square root of a number is irrational. Then the rest of the thread used the logical meaning of "specify" (one case of a general statement) whereas
>>3 etc. use the meaning "to define".
Thread over?