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....?

नेति नेति
Neti Neti -> A - $A∞ = X

Remove any equation that we can show is false, until we have something that resembles the truth.