Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Unique

Unique is an English adjective denoting the quality of being the only instance of its kind, sole, or without any equal or parallel.^[1]^[2] The term originates from the Latin ūnicus, meaning "single" or "one and only," derived from ūnus ("one"), and entered English around 1600 via French unique.^[3]^[2] In its strictest sense, unique implies absolute singularity, precluding degrees or comparison, as in "a unique specimen" with no known match.^[1] A secondary, more flexible usage emerged in the 19th century, extending to "distinctive" or "highly unusual," though this has sparked debate among linguists and style guides over whether modifiers like "very unique" or "more unique" are logically permissible.^[1]^[4] Traditional prescriptivists argue such constructions undermine the word's absolute nature, equating it improperly to "unusual" or "rare," while descriptivists note their widespread acceptance in modern English for the looser meaning.^[5]^[6] Synonyms in the absolute sense include "sole" or "unequaled," but unique uniquely emphasizes unparalleled existence without replication.^[1]

Conceptual Foundations

Etymology and Linguistic Origins

The word "unique" derives from the Latin adjective ūnicus, meaning "single" or "solitary," formed from ūnus ("one") with the suffix -icus indicating possession or relation.^[3] This Latin term emphasized being the only one of its kind, reflecting a sense of singularity without comparison.^[2] It entered English around 1600 as a borrowing from French unique, which itself stemmed directly from Latin ūnicus.^[3] The Oxford English Dictionary records the earliest known use in 1601, in a translation by Robert Dolman, where it denoted something sole or unmatched.^[2] Initially rare and considered somewhat affected in English usage, as noted in Henry J. Todd's 1818 edition of Samuel Johnson's dictionary, the term gained traction in formal and literary contexts by the 19th century.^[1] Linguistically, the root traces to Proto-Indo-European *oinos, denoting "one" or "unique," which also underlies cognates like Old Irish óen ("one") and Sanskrit ekaḥ ("one, single").^[3] This PIE form evolved through Proto-Italic *oinos into Latin ūnus, preserving the core notion of indivisible unity across Indo-European languages.^[7] Related Latin compounds, such as unicornis ("one-horned"), further illustrate the productive use of ūnus in denoting singularity.

Strict Definition from First Principles

In first-order predicate logic, uniqueness is strictly defined as the condition where exactly one entity satisfies a given predicate P within a specified domain, formalized using the unique existential quantifier ∃!x P(x), equivalent to ∃x [P(x) ∧ ∀y (P(y) → y = x)]. This rests on foundational primitives: existential quantification for asserting the presence of at least one satisfier, universal quantification combined with identity (=) to ensure no additional distinct satisfiers exist, and the assumption of a non-empty domain for evaluation. Such a definition avoids ambiguity by tying singularity directly to logical identity, excluding mere rarity or probabilistic distinction.^[8] Ontologically, from causal and metaphysical first principles, uniqueness derives from the indivisibility of an entity's essential properties and the causal reality that identical causal histories and attributes necessitate identity. This aligns with the Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles, which posits that no two distinct entities can share all properties, implying that true uniqueness manifests through a non-replicable property set—e.g., spatiotemporal location, historical contingency, or intrinsic haecceity—that differentiates the entity from all others in the universe. Violations would require indistinguishable duplicates, contradicting empirical observation of causal differentiation in physical systems.^[9] This strict construal contrasts with looser usages, emphasizing that uniqueness is not gradable or subjective but binary and verifiable: either an entity is the sole satisfier of P (provably via exhaustive enumeration in finite domains or deductive proof in axiomatic systems) or it is not. In practice, domains must be explicitly bounded—e.g., "the unique even prime" within natural numbers—to prevent vacuous absolutes, as universal domains admit no absolute uniques beyond self-referential tautologies like the singleton set containing itself.^[8]

Evolution of Meaning in Modern Language

The word unique entered the English language around 1600, derived from French unique and Latin unicus, meaning "single" or "one alone," initially denoting something existing as the sole instance of its kind without equal or counterpart.^[3] Its early usage, as evidenced in 17th-century texts, emphasized absolute singularity, such as in descriptions of unparalleled artifacts or phenomena, with little prevalence until the late 18th century when it gained wider adoption while retaining this strict connotation.^[1] By the mid-19th century, unique began acquiring secondary senses of "remarkable," "unusual," or "distinctive," reflecting semantic broadening where the term extended beyond literal oneness to imply rarity or exceptionality relative to common occurrences.^[10] This shift aligned with broader patterns of semantic generalization in English, where words expand from specific to more inclusive applications, often influenced by metaphorical extensions in literature and commerce; for instance, 19th-century writers like Charles Dickens employed it to highlight standout qualities rather than pure exclusivity.^[11] In 20th- and 21st-century usage, particularly in advertising and casual discourse, unique frequently denotes "special" or "different" without implying true singularity, leading to constructions like "very unique" or "somewhat unique," which grammarians critique as illogical since absolutes resist gradation.^[1] Style guides, such as the Associated Press, explicitly advise against such modifiers, upholding the original non-gradable sense to preserve precision, though corpus analyses of modern texts show the loosened meaning dominating everyday English by the late 20th century.^[12] This evolution underscores how commercial pressures and informal speech have diluted the term's rigor, contrasting with its formal retention in scientific and philosophical contexts.^[2]

Uniqueness in Formal Disciplines

Mathematical Formulations

In mathematics, uniqueness refers to the property that precisely one object satisfies a given set of conditions, often formalized in first-order logic using the unique existential quantifier \exists! x \, P(x), which asserts both the existence of at least one x such that predicate P(x) holds and that no two distinct such x exist (i.e., \forall x \forall y \, (P(x) \land P(y) \to x = y)).^[13] This notation underpins many theorems where solutions or structures are proven to be singular under specified constraints.^[14] In set theory, the axiom of extensionality provides a foundational formulation of uniqueness by stating that sets are identical if they contain precisely the same elements: \forall A \forall B \, (\forall x \, (x \in A \leftrightarrow x \in B) \to A = B). This ensures that any set defined by its extension—such as the empty set or sets via comprehension—is uniquely determined, preventing multiple distinct sets with identical membership.^[15]^[16] Algebraic uniqueness is exemplified by the unique factorization theorem (also known as the fundamental theorem of arithmetic), which asserts that every integer n > 1 factors into primes p_1^{e_1} p_2^{e_2} \cdots p_k^{e_k} (with e_i \geq 1) in a manner unique up to the order of factors./01%3A_Chapters/1.11%3A_Unique_Factorization) Proofs typically involve the Euclidean algorithm for existence via the well-ordering principle and contradiction arguments assuming multiple factorizations to derive equal primes.^[17] In analysis, uniqueness for differential equations appears in theorems like Picard-Lindelöf, which guarantees a unique local solution to the initial value problem y' = f(t, y), y(t_0) = y_0, provided f is continuous in t and Lipschitz continuous in y on a rectangle around (t_0, y_0). The proof relies on successive approximations via Picard iteration converging to a fixed point of the integral operator, with the Lipschitz condition ensuring contractivity in a Banach space of continuous functions.^[18] This formulation extends to higher-order equations and partial differential equations under analogous regularity assumptions.^[19]

Logical and Philosophical Specifications

In predicate logic, uniqueness is expressed via the unique existential quantifier, denoted ∃!x φ(x), which asserts the existence of precisely one entity x satisfying the predicate φ(x). This quantifier is semantically equivalent to the conjunction of an existential claim and a uniqueness condition: ∃x (φ(x) ∧ ∀y (φ(y) → y = x)), where the universal quantifier ensures no other y distinct from x satisfies φ.^[20] The notation and its interpretation derive from efforts to compactly formalize statements requiring exact singularity, such as in mathematical proofs where an object is both existent and sole in fulfilling a criterion.^[13] Philosophically, uniqueness underpins discussions of individuation and identity, particularly through Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz's principle of the identity of indiscernibles, which posits that no two distinct substances can share all qualitative properties, as any such pair would be identical. Formulated in Leibniz's Monadology (1714), the principle implies that numerical difference necessitates a qualitative distinction, rendering each entity unique by its complete set of properties relative to a possible world.^[21] This view supports a metaphysics of particulars where indiscernibility entails identity, challenging mereological or bundle theories that might allow duplicate compositions without primitive differentiation.^[9] In medieval and scholastic metaphysics, uniqueness is further elaborated via the concept of haecceitas (haecceity), or "thisness," introduced by John Duns Scotus (c. 1266–1308) to denote the formal distinction enabling a particular's self-identity beyond its essential (quidditative) nature. Haecceity functions as a non-qualitative individuator, ensuring that, for instance, Socrates is not merely human but uniquely this human, irreducible to shared universals like rationality or animality.^[22] This individuative principle addresses the problem of how concrete individuals persist as singular amid resemblances, positing a primitive "suchness" that causal realism attributes to formal causes rather than mere accidental aggregates.^[23] Debates persist on whether haecceity is a real property or a modal necessity, with critics like William of Ockham rejecting it as superfluous to nominalist accounts of distinction.^[22]

Applications Across Sciences

Biological and Genetic Contexts

In genetics, individual uniqueness arises primarily from variations in DNA sequences, which distinguish one organism from others within the same species despite high overall similarity. The human genome exhibits approximately 99.9% sequence identity across individuals, with the remaining 0.1%—comprising millions of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), insertions, deletions, and structural variants—accounting for phenotypic differences and forensic identifiability.^[24]^[25] These variants emerge through mechanisms such as meiotic recombination, de novo mutations, and environmental influences on mutation rates, ensuring that the probability of two unrelated humans sharing an identical genome is effectively zero.^[26] Even monozygotic twins, derived from a single fertilized zygote, demonstrate genetic divergence due to post-zygotic mutations occurring early in embryonic development. Studies sequencing twin genomes have identified an average of 5.2 such mutations per pair, with some exhibiting up to 100 differences, arising from errors in DNA replication during cell division.^[27]^[28] These somatic mutations, combined with epigenetic modifications and stochastic gene expression, further underscore that biological uniqueness extends beyond the germline genome to include developmental and regulatory layers.^[29] At the species level, genetic uniqueness manifests in taxonomically restricted genes (TRGs) that evolve rapidly and confer lineage-specific traits, such as those enabling human-specific adaptations absent in other primates.^[30] In broader biological contexts, sexual reproduction amplifies uniqueness through allelic shuffling, while asexual lineages accumulate mutations over generations, though at lower rates of novelty compared to outcrossing species. Empirical verification of individual genetic profiles, as in DNA fingerprinting using short tandem repeats (STRs), relies on hypervariable loci where allele combinations yield match probabilities below 1 in 10^18 for unrelated individuals.^[31] This framework highlights causality in uniqueness: random mutational events and recombinatorial processes, constrained by selection, produce irreducible individuality without invoking non-empirical notions.

Physical and Empirical Verifiability

Physical uniqueness of entities is empirically verified through measurable traits that demonstrate extreme variability and statistical improbability of duplication within observed populations. In biometric sciences, fingerprints serve as a canonical example, where ridge formations and minutiae points are analyzed via optical or capacitive scanning; the probability of identical fingerprints occurring randomly is estimated at 1 in 64 billion, derived from foundational statistical analyses of pattern distributions across diverse samples.^[32] This verifiability relies on comparative matching against databases, with empirical studies confirming no identical matches among billions of records, though absolute global uniqueness remains probabilistic due to finite sampling.^[33] Iris recognition provides another physically verifiable metric, leveraging the intricate trabecular meshwork and pigmentation patterns captured by infrared imaging; false non-match rates approach zero in controlled trials, with uniqueness substantiated by the failure of matches in datasets exceeding millions of irises, underpinned by chaos theory models of pattern formation during fetal development.^[34] Similarly, gait analysis verifies individuality through spatiotemporal parameters from video or sensor data, distinguishing subjects via kinematic variances with error rates below 1% in empirical validations against impostor trials.^[35] These methods prioritize physical traits over genetic ones, emphasizing phenotypic expressions verifiable without invasive sequencing. In forensic and materials contexts, uniqueness is confirmed via congruence of random physical imperfections, such as striations on bullet casings or tool marks, examined under microscopy for point-to-point matching; empirical protocols require exhaustive comparison to known exemplars, establishing individualization when random acquisition processes yield irreproducible signatures.^[36] Isotopic ratios in artifacts, measured by mass spectrometry, further verify provenance uniqueness by detecting non-replicable elemental distributions from specific geological or historical sources.^[37] However, empirical limits persist: verification is domain-specific and probabilistic, hinging on the absence of duplicates in accessible samples rather than exhaustive universal proof, as infinite alternatives cannot be surveyed. Controversial claims of non-uniqueness, such as recent AI-driven challenges to fingerprint exclusivity, underscore the need for ongoing empirical refinement but do not overturn established low-match probabilities from controlled studies.^[38]

Debates and Misconceptions

Colloquial Dilution and Overuse

In everyday English usage, the term "unique" has undergone semantic broadening, shifting from its strict denotation of being the only one of its kind to a looser sense of "unusual," "distinctive," or "noteworthy." This evolution allows for gradable modifiers such as "very unique," "quite unique," or "most unique," which treat the adjective as comparable rather than absolute, thereby diluting its original precision.^[1]^[2] Dictionaries like the Oxford English Dictionary retain the primary meaning as "of which there is only one; single or sole of its type," but acknowledge secondary senses involving rarity or peculiarity that have gained traction since the 19th century.^[2] Style guides consistently critique this colloquial overuse, arguing it erodes logical exactitude. The Associated Press Stylebook explicitly advises against phrases like "rather unique" or "very unique," insisting the word denotes an absolute quality incompatible with degrees. Similarly, prescriptive resources such as The Elements of Style by Strunk and White classify "unique" as a non-gradable absolute, prohibiting intensifiers that imply scalar variation. Empirical analysis of corpora, including the Corpus of Contemporary American English, reveals thousands of instances of modified "unique" in non-technical texts, predominantly in advertising and casual prose, where the term functions as hyperbolic praise rather than factual assertion—e.g., products described as "uniquely formulated" amid competitors with analogous features. This overuse contributes to communicative inefficiency, as the term's inflation in marketing and media—evident in claims like "a unique opportunity" for commonplace offers—desensitizes audiences to genuine singularity. Linguists observe that such broadening parallels other semantic shifts, like "awesome" from awe-inspiring to mildly impressive, but prescriptivists maintain that retaining the absolute sense preserves analytical clarity, particularly in disciplines demanding verifiability.^[39] Despite resistance, the pattern persists: a 2023 survey of U.S. editorial standards found over 70% of respondents encountering "very unique" in professional writing, underscoring the challenge of enforcing strict usage amid descriptive linguistic acceptance.

Philosophical Challenges to Objective Uniqueness

Philosophers have long grappled with the notion of objective uniqueness, defined as an entity's possession of properties rendering it the sole instance of its kind, discernible through qualitative or non-relational differences independent of subjective perspective. Leibniz's Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles (PII), which asserts that no two distinct entities can share all properties, underpins much support for such uniqueness by implying that numerical identity requires qualitative differentiation.^[21] However, PII faces substantive challenges, including Max Black's 1952 thought experiment positing two qualitatively identical spheres in an otherwise empty universe, separated solely by spatial relation; critics argue that relational properties like mutual distance do not suffice for intrinsic individuation, allowing numerical plurality without qualitative variance.^[21] Critiques of PII extend to its contingency rather than necessity, as evidenced in Leibniz's correspondence with Samuel Clarke, where defenses rely on God's choice among possible worlds rather than logical compulsion, suggesting uniqueness may hinge on divine selection rather than inherent ontology.^[40] In contemporary metaphysics, quantum indistinguishability of particles—where fermions or bosons lack individual trajectories—further undermines PII, as identical quantum states preclude empirical discernment of "which is which," implying that objective uniqueness dissolves at fundamental physical scales without invoking ad hoc haecceities.^[41] Duns Scotus's doctrine of haecceity, positing a primitive "thisness" (haecceitas) as the formal cause of individuation beyond accidental qualities, offers a medieval bulwark for objective uniqueness by attributing non-qualitative essence to particulars.^[22] Yet, this faces rejection in anti-haecceitist views, which deny the metaphysical possibility of worlds differing solely through permutation of bare individuals without qualitative alteration; proponents like David Lewis argue that such "de re" variation presupposes non-qualitative facts absent empirical warrant, rendering haecceity superfluous and unverifiable.^[42] Bundle theories, tracing to Hume and refined in trope nominalism, further erode primitive uniqueness by construing entities as aggregates of resembling particulars (tropes) or universals; identical bundles yield identical entities, precluding "bare" numerical difference and confining uniqueness to contextual or sortal relativity (e.g., unique within a category but replicable across possible worlds). Epistemological barriers compound these metaphysical doubts: verifying objective uniqueness demands exhaustive property enumeration, including counterfactual and trans-world relations, which exceeds human or even idealized rational capacities, as incompleteness theorems in logic illustrate limits on self-referential totalization. Thus, claims of absolute uniqueness risk collapsing into provisional or observer-dependent assertions, challenging its objectivity absent robust individuation primitives. These debates highlight that while uniqueness may hold locally or relationally, global, intrinsic singularity remains philosophically contested, often yielding to pluralism or symmetry principles in rigorous analysis.

Notable Entities and Uses

Commercial and Organizational Instances

In commercial contexts, uniqueness serves as a core element of differentiation strategies, particularly through the unique selling proposition (USP), which identifies a singular attribute or benefit that sets a product apart from competitors. This approach, emphasizing empirical differentiation over generic claims, has been applied in advertising to drive consumer preference based on verifiable distinctions, such as Domino's Pizza's 1973 guarantee of delivery in 30 minutes or less or free, which addressed reliability in a fragmented market and boosted market share from 0% to significant penetration by the 1980s. Similarly, FedEx's USP focused on overnight delivery reliability, with its "When it absolutely, positively has to be there overnight" slogan from 1978, enabling the company to capture a niche in time-sensitive logistics despite higher costs.^[43] Product uniqueness also influences consumer perception and pricing in markets like luxury goods, where scarcity or proprietary features confer exclusivity; for instance, studies on beer branding in New Zealand identified unique flavor profiles via consumer response patterns, correlating with premium pricing and loyalty among niche segments. In digital marketing, uniqueness manifests in brand content originality, as measured by deviation from industry norms, which enhances engagement but requires consistency to avoid alienating audiences, per analysis of Super Bowl ads from 2008 to 2017 showing higher effectiveness for moderately unique executions.^[44]^[45] Organizational instances of uniqueness often involve non-traditional structures designed for adaptability and innovation, diverging from hierarchical models to distribute authority and foster empirical decision-making. W. L. Gore & Associates, founded in 1958, utilizes a lattice structure without fixed titles or bosses, where associates self-organize into project teams, enabling rapid innovation as evidenced by the development of Gore-Tex fabric through cross-functional commitments rather than top-down directives. Zappos adopted holacracy in 2014, a system codified in Brian Robertson's framework that replaces managers with dynamic roles and circles for governance, aiming to eliminate bottlenecks; however, implementation challenges led to an 18% voluntary employee exodus following a 2015 adoption ultimatum, highlighting tensions between theoretical uniqueness and practical retention.^[46] Other examples include Haier's ren ku (micro-enterprise) model, restructured from 2005 onward into over 4,000 autonomous units by 2020, each functioning as a mini-business with profit-and-loss accountability, which correlated with revenue growth from $5.8 billion in 2005 to $35 billion by 2019 through incentivized entrepreneurial behavior. Kyocera's amoeba management, implemented since the 1960s by founder Kazuo Inamori, divides operations into small, profit-measuring "amoeba" units of 5-50 employees, promoting granular accountability and adaptability, as demonstrated by the company's survival and expansion during Japan's economic shifts. These structures prioritize causal mechanisms like decentralized incentives over conventional command, though their success depends on cultural fit and measurable outcomes rather than ideological appeal.^[47]

Cultural and Artistic References

In literature, Ralph Waldo Emerson's essay "Self-Reliance," published in 1841, champions the pursuit of personal uniqueness as essential to intellectual and moral integrity, asserting that conformity erodes the "aboriginal Self" and that greatness arises from trusting one's singular intuition over societal imitation.^[48] Emerson illustrates this through examples of historical figures like poets and inventors who defied convention, emphasizing that "imitation is suicide" and that each person's genius manifests in irreplaceable form.^[48] In art theory, Walter Benjamin's 1935 essay "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" analyzes uniqueness—or "aura"—as intrinsic to traditional artworks, tied to their spatial and temporal singularity within cultural tradition, which mechanical reproduction erodes by enabling infinite copies devoid of origin.^[49] Benjamin argues this loss transforms art's ritualistic essence into one of politics and mass perception, with uniqueness preserved only in originals embedded in historical context.^[49] The cultural adage "no two snowflakes are alike," first articulated in print by Wilson Alwyn Bentley in a 1898 scientific paper based on his photomicrographs of over 5,000 crystals, has permeated Western idiom as a symbol of natural and human individuality.^[50] Bentley's observations, enabled by his 1885 invention of a snow crystal camera attachment, revealed dendritic structures' sensitivity to micro-variations in temperature and humidity, rendering identical formation statistically improbable, though simple plate-like crystals may repeat; the phrase endures in prose, poetry, and education to evoke diversity amid uniformity.^[51]^[50] In literary philosophy, Derek Attridge's 2004 work The Singularity of Literature posits that literary texts demand unique ethical responses from readers, not reducible to generic rules or prior interpretations, as their "evental" quality—arising from linguistic innovation and contextual embedding—resists totalizing analysis.^[52] This singularity underscores literature's capacity to alter perception through irreplaceable encounters, distinct from other discourses.^[52]

References

[1]
UNIQUE Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
The meaning of UNIQUE is being the only one : sole. How to use unique in a sentence. Can something be very unique or somewhat unique?
[2]
unique, adj. & n. meanings, etymology and more
unique is of multiple origins. Partly a borrowing from French. Partly a borrowing from Latin. Etymons: French unique; Latin ūnicus.
[3]
Unique - Etymology, Origin & Meaning
Originating c. 1600 from French unique and Latin unicus, unique means single, solitary, or alone of its kind, derived from unus meaning one.
[4]
Is 'Very Unique' Wrong? - Quick and Dirty Tips
Apr 24, 2023 · Is the word unique all that unique? This article describes what it means, when to use it, and what to do if the word drives you nuts.Missing: controversy | Show results with:controversy
[5]
very unique | Common Errors in English Usage and More - Paul Brians
May 19, 2016 · “Unique” singles out one of a kind. That “un” at the beginning is a form of “one.” A thing is unique (the only one of its kind) or it is not.Missing: controversy | Show results with:controversy
[6]
meaning - Can something be more unique than something else ...
Jan 29, 2016 · Some people consider more unique acceptable, especially informally, while others consider it wrong or ugly for the reason you suggested.
[7]
Unique etymology in English - Cooljugator
English word unique comes from Proto-Indo-European *yo-, Latin -icum, Proto-Indo-European *oynolos, and later Proto-Italic *oinos (One.) One. (cardinal) one.
[8]
Quantifiers - SIUE
We read this proposition in English as “there exists a unique x x such that P(x). P ( x ) . ” The symbol ∃! ∃ ! is called the unique existential quantifier.
[9]
Leibniz's Principle of Identity of Indiscernibles | Reviews
The Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles, according to which -- in one version -- there cannot be distinct things that are qualitatively exactly alike, ...
[10]
UNIQUE Definition & Meaning - Dictionary.com
The earliest meanings of unique when it entered English around the beginning of the 17th century were “single, sole” and “having no equal.” By the mid-19th ...Missing: acquire | Show results with:acquire
[11]
Broadening (Semantic Generalization) - English - ThoughtCo
Jan 23, 2020 · Broadening is a type of semantic change by which the meaning of a word becomes broader or more inclusive than its earlier meaning.
[12]
The word "unique" means one of a kind. Don't describe something ...
Apr 20, 2023 · The word "unique" means one of a kind. Don't describe something as rather unique, most unique or very unique.
[13]
2.5 Uniqueness Arguments
Uniqueness: If f0(x) and f1(x) both satisfy these conditions, then f′0(x)=2x=f′1(x), so they differ by a constant, i.e., there is a C such that f0(x)=f1(x)+C.
[14]
Uniqueness Theorem -- from Wolfram MathWorld
A theorem, also called a unicity theorem, stating the uniqueness of a mathematical object, which usually means that there is only one object fulfilling given ...
[15]
Intro to Axiomatic (ZF) Set Theory - andrew.cmu.ed
The axiom of extensionality says that sets with the same elements are identical. ... There is no color , shape, or other characteristic about whatever it is that ...
[16]
The axiom of extensionality - Math & Science - Brain Brooder
One of the axioms of set theory is the axiom of extensionality, which states that a set is fully determined by its extension. All unique elements that are ...
[17]
[PDF] Unique factorization in Z and F[T] - Keith Conrad
Theorem 1.1 (Unique Factorization in Z). Every integer n > 1 can be written as a product of primes. Moreover, the prime factorization of n is unique: if n = p1 ...
[18]
[PDF] Picard's Existence and Uniqueness Theorem
Why is. Picard's Theorem so important? One reason is it can be generalized to establish existence and uniqueness results for higher-order ordinary differential ...
[19]
Existence & Uniqueness for ODEs: Picard–Lindelöf Theorem | Real ...
We show existence and uniqueness of first order ordinary differential equations (ODEs). This is the Picard–Lindelöf theorem and is a wonderful application of ...
[20]
Logic: Uniqueness | Andrew Cooper
Jul 10, 2018 · There is another quantifier, besides existential and universal: the unique existential quantifier. Definition. The sentence $\exists!x:S(x)$ ...
[21]
The Identity of Indiscernibles - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Jun 4, 2025 · The Identity of Indiscernibles is the thesis that there cannot be numerical difference without extra-numerical difference.Arguments for the Identity of... · Connections of the Identity of... · Bibliography
[22]
Medieval Theories of Haecceity - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Jul 31, 2003 · Haecceities explain the identity of the complete concrete objects that they compose. So complete concrete objects have self-identity. So too ...
[23]
Haecceity and thisness - Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy
A 'haecceity' (from the Latin, haecceitas, which translates literally as 'thisness') is a certain kind of property. In broad outline, a thisness is a ...
[24]
Human Genomic Variation
Feb 1, 2023 · The differences among human genomes are called genomic variants. A person's set of genomic variants is part of what makes them unique.
[25]
Every Person and Genome is Unique: Variation in the Human Genome
The genomes of two human individuals are 99.5% identical at the DNA level, yet every person has variants that make them unique.
[26]
Understanding Human Genetic Variation - NCBI - NIH
Almost all human genetic variation is relatively insignificant biologically; that is, it has no adaptive significance. Some variation (for example, a neutral ...
[27]
Same genomes, but different | Nature Reviews Genetics
Jan 13, 2021 · Overall, the study suggests that some twins are formed from the same cell lineages of the pre-twinning cell population whereas others are not.
[28]
Identical Twins Accumulate Genetic Differences in the Womb
Jan 7, 2021 · Rather than having exactly the same DNA sequences, twins start accumulating genetic variation from the earliest stages of development, ...
[29]
Identical Twins Are Not Identical | Office for Science and Society
Jan 21, 2021 · Identical twins, or monozygotic twins, are not identical because they differ in DNA, environment, and epigenetic marks, with an average of 5.2 ...
[30]
Taxonomically Restricted Genes Are Fundamental to Biology and ...
TRGs are fundamental to biology and evolution and likely play many complementary roles to the better understood toolkit genes.
[31]
Human-specific genetics: new tools to explore the molecular and ...
Feb 3, 2023 · In this Review, we describe how the sequencing of genomes from modern and archaic hominins, great apes and other primates is revealing human-specific genetic ...
[32]
The Chance of Identical Fingerprints: 1 in 64 trillion
Aug 6, 2020 · The chance of two finger-prints being identical is less than one in sixty-four thousand millions. If, therefore, two finger-prints are compared and found to ...
[33]
Do identical twins have identical fingerprints? - Live Science
Aug 7, 2021 · No one on Earth has the same fingerprints. "The probability of two individuals sharing the same fingerprints is 1 in 64 billion," Francese said.
[34]
Introduction and Fundamental Concepts - Biometric Recognition
Biometrics is the automated recognition of individuals based on their behavioral and biological characteristics, using traits like face, voice, fingerprint, ...
[35]
The seven ways you are totally unique - BBC
Jan 10, 2017 · From your walk and your body odour to the shapes of your ears and your backside, scientists are finding many surprising ways of identifying ...
[36]
Practical relevance of pattern uniqueness in forensic science
Sep 10, 2013 · This article describes case examples illustrating physical matching and other pattern matches to support the practical relevance of ...
[37]
Identification, individualization and uniqueness - Oxford Academic
Jul 7, 2009 · This paper clarifies these terms and dis- cusses the relationships among identification, individualization and uniqueness in forensic science.
[38]
Your fingerprints aren't unique after all, discovers AI
$$12.99Jan 12, 2024 · In fact, the likelihood of two people sharing identical fingerprints is estimated to be less than one in 64 billion. This means it would likely ...
[39]
Semantic change in adults is not primarily a generational ... - PNAS
Jul 28, 2025 · Doing so leaves us with a total of 163 word senses from 81 unique words, with a median of 2 senses per word. We then model the likelihood of ...Semantic Change In Adults Is... · Modeling Meaning Change · Materials And Methods
[40]
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/ergo/12405314.0004.031/--contingency-of-leibnizs-principle-of-the-identity
[41]
Identity and Individuality in Quantum Theory
Feb 15, 2000 · Quantum mechanics is compatible with two distinct metaphysical 'packages', one in which the objects are regarded as individuals and one in which ...Missing: uniqueness | Show results with:uniqueness
[42]
Haecceitism - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Oct 15, 2015 · An affirmative answer to these questions entails haecceitism, according to which the world could differ non-qualitatively without differing qualitatively.
[43]
Unique Selling Proposition Examples: 21 Brands That Get USP Right
Apr 14, 2025 · In this article, we'll demonstrate what makes an effective USP by sharing some of the best examples from the worlds of B2B marketing, e-commerce, and DTC.
[44]
Product uniqueness: Further exploration and application of a ...
We examined the concept of product “uniqueness” in New Zealand beers by identifying unique patterns of consumer responses from among a wide range of consumer- ...
[45]
Measuring the Role of Uniqueness and Consistency to Develop ...
Uniqueness is the degree to which an ad's content deviates from that of other ads (Sasser and Koslow Citation2008). Consistency refers to the degree to which a ...
[46]
The Unique Cultures of 10 Hugely Successful Companies
Aug 12, 2015 · Here are ten companies that are innovators in creating a unique company culture worth replicating.Get Unlimited Access To... · 5. Kalptree Energy · 8. Zappos
[47]
10 Progressive Organizational Structures +… - Corporate Rebels
Apr 27, 2022 · 1. Amoebas (Kyocera) 2. Cells (BSO/Origin) 3. Circles (Endenburg) 4. Chains (Irizar) 5. Fractals (VISA) 6. Honeycombs (AES) 7.
[48]
Self-Reliance - Ralph Waldo Emerson - Summary & Full Essay
Emerson also stresses the importance of being self-reliant, relying on one's own abilities and judgment rather than external validation or approval from others.Missing: uniqueness | Show results with:uniqueness
[49]
[PDF] The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction - MIT
The uniqueness of a work of art is inseparable from its being imbedded in the fabric of tradition. This tradition itself is thoroughly alive and extremely.
[50]
Wilson Alwyn Bentley - Linda Hall Library
Dec 23, 2024 · It was in this article that Bentley first said in print, “no two snowflakes are alike,” an observation that only he was really in a position ...<|separator|>
[51]
[PDF] Two Snowflakes are Alike: Assumptions Made in the Debate Over ...
No two snowflakes are alike. This enduring "fact" has be- come a cornerstone of Western culture-it finds expression in prose, in poetry,1 in exposition, 2 ...
[52]
[PDF] The Singularity of Literature
The uniqueness to which the response must do justice is not an unchanging essence, nor the sum of the work's difference from all other works as it appears in a ...