Reply
Wed 15 Oct, 2008 09:24 pm
Ok first off I need a lot of help with understanding logic, and I'm trying to create the mindset in my head to help me get through it. Its easy enough to understand, but to brainstorm from it... I feel innate, and I'm frustrated by it.

First off, can I have a function for " ... ", just as "or" is to disjunction.

Also, I don't think that "therefore" is quite the same as "then", nor is it quite like "and". So does it have a separate function?

And also, is this an example of a classical system or a quantum system? Youtube prof says its classical, but I am confused. I think its quantum, but then again, I may not see "quantum" the same way as him. Is this system open or closed? In a classical system I would think that in order to have a continous input there must be a continous output. So is this system rational, (leading me ofcourse to answer the original question).

[ATTACH]28[/ATTACH]

Furthermore, can I represent logical functions or logical translations of statements by these sort of systems? I mean, we could say that T and F validities are like 2 bit systems right? And how many points would a 2 bit system have?

Are these examples valid?

[ATTACH]29[/ATTACH] [ATTACH]30[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]31[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]32[/ATTACH]

This last one here is an example of how I'm trying to prove how I can replace the subjects with themes (ex. duality, morality, fear, hate, love, war, etc.). The nice thing about this system is it fits how themes can be measured in a system such as a book or a mind or the real world. I am proposing that themes can only be measured proportional to eachother, and so, this system works, because the subjects do not express and self value, making the subjects irrational or undefinable. The subjects are instead determined by the nature of their influences, which happen to be eachother in a way I'm trying to figure out how to explain.

This is because I'm assuming only 'materials' can be mathematically identified/given a value. Fundamentals or themes, are immaterial so no mathematical value can be attained so the system must be irrational to resolve the fact. (If you call that a solution of course:lol:).

@Holiday20310401,

And (the dot) is a copula linking two terms or statements.

Therefore (pyramid triple dot) is the traditional indication of a conclusion derived from prior premises.

Then (the horseshoe) is usually used as the result of a conditional expression, as in if.....then.

The first figure looks like a part of the traditional square of opposition. As to the rest of the diagrams, they appear to be something akin to flow charts; perhaps verbal descriptions of what they represent might clarify what they

*mean*.

[Second thoughts appended later. It might be interesting to see whether or not philosophical arguments could be translated into flow charts or decision tables of the kind one finds in computer programing. Since programing and logic are allies, so to speak, in the process of thinking, this might be another way to think about, or analyse, at least some ---if not many ---of these arguments.]

@jgweed,

We have covered some of this in predicate logic actually. Logic is really just a system of easy notations for logic relations. We used the notations to allow our minds to see several seperate connections in one image.

I am a bit hazy on it, but if you want I'll dig up some notes I made.

@jgweed,

jgweed wrote:And (the dot) is a copula linking two terms or statements.

What exactly is a copula other than the fact it links two logical statements, if I have it right?

Also, these systems are the movement of a particle through a system, so lets say particles move through a system characterized by the lines and arrows. I wanted to make these logical systems and it sounds like from what Arjen says and from what JGweed has provided, there is already a formal way of doing this?

I am particularly interested in using this kind of analogical system approach for logic involving themes. So I guess, you know, taking a system such as as the society on Earth, and labelling themes. And all the themes you'd wish to incorporate are each labelled as a copula, and each theme is connected to one another. But I'm now wondering what rules thematic logic follows so that I can develop this sort of thing, because I think it can help me develop theme statements. And I also want to experiment with systems somehow to find a way to express opinions about themes, or non-factual statements. Has this already been done?

@Holiday20310401,

I should perhaps clarify what I wrote about the copula in logic, and how it links two statements or terms by the equivalent of "is" or "are" in the way subject is linked to predicate in the statement "all men are mortal" by asserting (at least) some kind of identity or implication.

I think that you will understand logic better if you temporarily abandon the physical picture of an argument being something akin to electrons sliding along a wire, and consider logic more like a geometric proof (minus the abstract linear representatons usually shown above the actual axioms, etc.). The attempt to quantify and make numerical the valid processes of reasoning may be causing confusion about logic.

Cheers,

John

@jgweed,

No no... I understand that logic cannot be made numerical,

, yes because I can make a connective shiftable to both (+)ve and (-)ve outcomes.:rolleyes:!

But I can distinguish relationships between subjects(whatever you call them in logic), and I want to prove that you can do more than say, "well if this is true then this and this or this plus this etc. I believe I can determine a value by relationship still.

I think that I can give a logical value from a mathematical relationship like inversely proportional. And of course relationships require at least two subjects. This is just perfect for logic because when are you ever going to want to validate the inherent value of a single, undividable statement.

And even more, I can take those values and say they are inherent in the comparisons between themes in thematic systems, though I'm kind of inventing my own silly way of doing this.