I don&#x27;t see where the author assumes that there&#x27;s only one switch. All they need is that there is at least one switch.<p>I also still don&#x27;t see the difference between my argument and the paper&#x27;s. You can say that &quot;is a pumpkin&quot; is not Boolean, but as long as you concede that the first object has a property the last one lacks, some object along the way must change.<p>You can say unambiguously a pumpkin is not Boolean, but then you just go one level up, to unambiguously unambiguously not a pumpkin. You don&#x27;t really need Boolean, you just need the property to be determined for some objects.<p>For any object, either it&#x27;s determined or not, right? So one level up should be enough.