All is not “none”. Your “example” is fatally flawed.
Regular Cool Hand Luke you have there.
The reference is flying over my head. I have Cool Hand Luke somewhere on my movies-to-watch list, though.
If the set has 0 elements, then 0 is “all” too, I don’t see what’s so hard to understand here.
I’m not disagreeing with you, really. I’m commenting on this.
From an technical standpoint, Thudlow is correct, but from the standpoint of using words to communicate ideas, it’s not helpful, because my intentionally deceptive statement was technically a perfectly accurate statement.
but…
Well, 38 votes in and I’m down 55-45%… I got a bit excited when the poll briefly pulled up to 50-50 yesterday. I thought, hey, maybe we got a horse race here! Oh well.
Though I kind of started it as a bit of a lark, the thread did raise quite a bit of actual debate. I did a little googling yesterday to see if there was anything definitive online about the minimum number required in a set to be properly referred to as ‘all’, but I found nothing-- only definitions of what ‘all’ means without specifying a minimum amount required.
Personally, in my heart of hearts, I still feel like I’m right— though two in a complete set might more accurately be referred to as ‘both’, I don’t think ‘all’ is at all wrong. And even a set of one-- “how many eggs are there?” “One’s all that’s left”.
I respectfully disagree with glowacks and others who even include 0, though. I think this usage is extremely misleading, if not downright wrong:
At the very least, you are not incorrect. There is nothing technically incorrect about your usage, and it’s never been a distinction I’ve ever been taught. (Not that that parts means much other than personal experience.) Like I said before, I would argue your usage is the better one at conveying your meaning – the disparity between you having zero cats and they having the rest of the cats. “All” works better, for me, in this context in emphasizing this.
Definitely watch it. A must see.
Thanks for backing me up throughout this thread pulykamell, appreciate it!
And, since kayaler brings it up again, the egg thing in reference to ‘Cool Hand Luke’ is (not really spoiling anything, but spoilered in case you’d rather watch the movie to find out):
Paul Newman’s character in the movie makes a bet that he can eat a ridiculous amount of hard-boiled eggs.
I will say that it is perhaps not the usual construction for two items; it does feel more idiomatic to use it only for three or more, but, like I said, context is important, and in your context, makes a lot of sense. And as far as “all two of them” goes, of course that can be an idiomatic construction. First, a Google Books search shows citations of that phrase in print but, more colloquially, you will see it used in a manner to emphasize the small size of something’s “allness,” "i.e. “Yeah, that district has Democratic voters – all two of them” or something of that nature.
pulykamell has it exactly right. You should listen only to those here who got it exactly right. All two of us.
Thanks to you too (two?) for having my back, @Exapno_Mapcase 
…or maybe this emoticon is more apropos
I’ll agree that ALL the poll choices were too limiting to allow a good response. I’ll also agree with this take:
So, “both” is preferable in almost all circumstances, but in the OP’s case “all” was the better choice. It instantly conveyed the injustice of the situation in a way that “both” never could.
Ugh, this is bugging me. I meant “e.g.” not “I.e.”
When I want to delete messages in a thread on the smart phone it gives me the choice of selecting individual texts by checking a box, or simply “All”. It gives me that choice even if there is only one text which bugs me but there it is. A definitive answer. I mean Samsung wouldn’t make something up would they?
Outside of mathematics classrooms, you’re probably right. But inside of them, proving a property holds for all elements of an empty set is trivial due to the lack of elements, and needs to be done on occasion because of how sets are constructed, and no one has a problem with it there.
I voted >=3 but 2 is not wrong. It’s just not conventional.
One is fine. Particularly if the cat is large. “You have all of the cat on your lap” is entirely appropriate when the cat might look something like a furry sumo wrestler capable spreading over several laps.
“All of the cat on your lap,” with the “the” changes it to mean there aren’t any limbs hanging off the side or something like that.