wizanda
Questioning the Rules of Reasoning Posted on: 2/5 22:18:43
Helper
Joined:
2004/3/26 7:04
From Nottingham, UK
Posts: 2031
So on trying to explain how my logic works to a professor of Logic; realized had to turn my equations in my head into a physical format, so did a few additional ones:

Code:

  • $ variable.
  • +\- plus or minus sum.
  • Letters with no variables are a known.
  • X marks the spot.
  • * made up by me.
  • -> Explained here.


  • Inductive (Leading to) -> Data first to reach a possible conclusion : A +\- B = $X

  • Deductive (Deduced based on) -> Conclusion is deduced from premise: A +\- B = X

  • Abductive -> Built upon the partial data, we build the most likely conclusion: $A +\- $B = $X

  • Reversive* -> We verify data, by reverse engineering it like algebra: $A + $B = $X = $A - $B

  • Argumentative -> Everything someone says will have fault, and we can deduce where they're always wrong in some context: $A - $B = $0

  • Abstractive* -> Never anything solid, just observed together: $A $B $C

  • Dismissive -> Nothing will ever do: 0 - 0 (-0) = 0

  • Zen -> Things are observed, and comprehended... Then quantified by its own equation; yet never truly equated... Just understood: A +\- B = $A * $B

  • Tao -> Things are understood by their own logical relationships, and then formulated with equal and opposite results; as all manner of things follow this inclination: A +\- B = $Yin/$Yang

  • Please add to this list with equations, and will be impressed....?



N B with U
Transfer Print PDF Bookmark Top
Top Previous Topic Next Topic
Register To Post
 This site is Hosted by Servage.Net