I'm reading the following course on second-order logic, by Péter Mekis : http://phil.elte.hu/mekis/sol.pdf . The course seems excellent, but I'm stuck on one of his first examples for showing the power of second-order logic w.r.t first-order logic.
In this example, he works on the following statement : "Santa Claus has all characteristic properties of a pedophile."
This is translated into the second-order logic sentence : ∀X ( R(X,P)→P(a) ),
where a is santa, P is the property of being a pedophile, X is a property and R tells us whether a property is characteristic of another property.
I understand this as : for all properties, if a property is characteristic of being a pedophile, then santa is a pedophile. This is obviously not what the statement says, so am I misunderstanding or should the second-order logic sentence instead be : ∀X ( R(X,P)→X(a) ), effectively meaning : for all properties, if the property is characteristic of being a pedophile, then santa has this property.