FOM: A Puzzle

[Dean Buckner]

I may be dense, but I don't see how we from

(1) There is a collection of names N that correspond 1-1 with a set of names
E

we can derive

(2)  N and E each denote the same number of objects

This may be for "empirical" reasons, all the more reason for arguing (2)
doesn't logically follow from (1).

So, if we *want* to prove (2), we *need* a further supporting premiss.
Perhaps the one I suggested was wrong.  What can anyone else suggest?

My point was logical, not philosophical.  (2) does not follow logically from
(1), from the very nature of proper names.


Dean