{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04142011834319527, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00253592561284869, 'mean_word_length': 4.611374407582939, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Review: J. F. Staal, Contraposition in Indian Logic

to be incomplete. According to the author's interpretation of the characteristically compressed Sanskrit formulations, the relation of ativySpti (overpervasion) holds between d and D whenever D " occurs " in both (a locus of) d and (a locus of) non-rf. But this is obviously too weak to capture condition (1). Since the term vrttitva (occurrence) functions as an existential quantifier under the author's interpretation in this paper, we need in addition the non-occurrence of d in (a locus of) non-2). But this is implicit in the fact that we have to do here with a relationship of vyapti. The corresponding amendment needed in the description of case (2) could be accomplished, if we interpret the Sanskrit logicians to mean that this case of non-coextensiveness is expressed by the conjunction of (a) the negation of ativySpti and (b) avySpti (non-pervasion), which is said to hold between d and D whenever both D and non-D occur in (a locus of) d. As a consequence of this incompleteness in the underlying texts, the author is led to give two mutually inconsistent formalized definientia for the relation of santkara. JAN BERO