[Kisai]

	Originally Posted by AlfredSchnittke To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What about IF, THEN ?

An if p then q statment (p -> q) is logically equivalent to a not p or q statement (~p V q).

In fact all your computer does at the CPU level is NOT, AND, and OR bits.

[LifesEcstasy]

Logic is checking your results and if they arent where you want them to be, doing something different. Or in other words, the opposite of insanity.

[frontaLobotomy]

Logic is empirical.

[Ender]

If I were to teach logic, I would first establish that all logic principles rest upon something. In other words, there is a degree of assumption or acceptance in the simplest of logical principles.

I can look at the sky and say it is blue. This is widely accepted because everyone corroborates it and all human eyes perceive the sky in the same way. My eyes perceiving the sky to be blue, however, that does not define or modify the properties of the sky; the sky's color exists regardless of whether I do. Another animal may perceive the sky to be what we call green, or even gray. And what is color anyway but a language in describing contrast and texture?

As you can see, it is extremely easy to become lost in logical loops full of questions and lacking in answers. Thus, when using logic, I assume basic principles to be true; I accept that a structure exists, regardless of whether I can prove the structure to exist, so that I can work within the structure. I could argue, for example, that there is a probable chance of rain tomorrow because experts have predicted such. I am being logical in the assumption, assuming that experts are generally correct in their predictions.

The key is that I'm totally leaving out some underlying questions to stay focused - questions such as, "What defines one as an expert on weather?" or "Can one truly predict a pattern as unpredictable as weather?"

Short answer: I find it inherently illogical to place emphasis on simplifying what logic is and risk losing meaning in the process.

[Tactical Panda]

	Originally Posted by frontaLobotomy To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Logic is empirical.

I can't tell if you are serious.

Are you serious?

[CrudeHypothesis]

Now I realize that even if someone explained logic in simple terms, you guys still wouldn't get it.

[PlatoHagel]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


If science and philosophy work together they can get to the logic of the simplest point ?

[MarianasTrench]

80 posts and I doubt a 12 year old would understand any of it.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Logic is a crazy paradox. Simple and Intuitive, but impossible to teach.

Maybe if you guys were to use examples and then explain the logic behind what occurs in the example.

ex. If I throw a ball into the air it will drop to the ground.

How can I solve this through logic?

Every time i've thrown the ball into the air, it's dropped to the ground.

But this isn't enough to extrapolate to future events or to other people throwing balls into the air.

So we need to understand gravity which teaches that objects of less mass are attracted to objects of greater mass. (But then we have to explain all the scientific tests that prove this)

Would be helpful if you guys used real world examples and explained the logic step by step.
Best example wins
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[nettneu]

	Originally Posted by MarianasTrench To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	ex. If I throw a ball into the air it will drop to the ground. How can I solve this through logic? ... Would be helpful if you guys used real world examples ...

What makes you think logic has anything to do with the real world?

Given the statements:
1. If I throw a ball into the air it will drop to the ground.
2. I throw a ball into the air.

Then logic will tell you that:
3. It will drop to the ground.

Even if, in the real world, it lands on a roof and gets stuck in the gutter.

Alternatively, given the statements
1. If I throw a ball into the air it drops to the ground.
2. I throw a ball into the air.
3. It does not drop to the ground.

Logic will tell you that at least one of the statements is untrue. But it won't tell you which - not without some additional premises.

[Tactical Panda]

*Disable later_entry = overwrite*

A is B.
A is not B.
A is ?

*System Crash*

[PlatoHagel]

	To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. , by Murray Gellman It is appropriate that plectics refers to entanglement or the lack thereof, since entanglement is a key feature of the way complexity arises out of simplicity, making our subject worth studying.

( Show Spoiler )

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

	Originally Posted by MarianasTrench
	ex. If I throw a ball into the air it will drop to the ground. How can I solve this through logic? Every time i've thrown the ball into the air, it's dropped to the ground.

So if you were 12 years old.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Maybe you can relate to the link on a personal collaborative basis?



To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Yet you are looking for something that runs deeper in the trenches? I thought you could relate.

[nettneu]

	Originally Posted by Someone called Ketterling, apparently
	Logic is an organized way of going wrong with confidence.

[MarianasTrench]

	Originally Posted by PlatoHagel To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	[spoiler] Yet you are looking for something that runs deeper in the trenches? I thought you could relate.

I totally relate, that's why I find explaining logic to a 12 year old so challenging. I can understand all these fancy words and everything, but what I'm trying to get to is the fundamentals of logic in a way that you could teach someone un-initiated.

I'm a big believer in reducing things to their most basic essence. If we can simplify something to its simplest terms, but still maintain all of the complexity.

For example, the phrase, good process leads to good results. Most people can understand that, but it is universally applicable even in the most complex scenarios.

[Tath]

A is A. You should be able to take it from there.

For the 12 year olds: logic is a system of reasoning by which you derive facts from other, already known, facts. So if I tell you a bag has only apples in it and ask you to tell me what kind of fruit you would pick if you took one piece of fruit out of the bag, you would know you would pick an apple.

[amanc3p0]

The Fundamental Working Principles of the Universe

[hamlet9]

Logic is the study of reasoning. It helps us explain what makes good reasoning good and what makes faulty reasoning faulty. Modern formal logic is the systematic study of reasoning. This system is mathematical in nature; indeed Frege, the father of modern logic, developed this system to show that much of mathematics grows out of logic.

I could go on and on, but I'm not going to write a textbook. Perhaps you should get yourself one. And forget what Tath said about facts: logic is the study of reasoning, not facts. GOOD REASONING DOES NOT NECESSARILY COINCIDE WITH FACTS. E.g., the following argument is valid:
All humans are bald. Justin Bieber is human. Thus, Justin Bieber is bald.
This is a well-reasoned argument because of how the statements are related to one another, but if logic was about facts, it wouldn't concern itself with such arguments, because the conclusion to this argument (and its first premise) is contrary to the facts. Enough said.

[kaer]

	Originally Posted by MarianasTrench To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Anyway to explain it in simpler terms? Imagine explaining it to a 12 year old.

Try these:


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Tactical Panda]

A is true.
If A is true B is true.
If B is true C is true.

Thus because A is true, C is true.

Stop. The. Presses.

*Mind implodes, eyes get sucked into skull too*

[frontaLobotomy]

	Originally Posted by Tactical Panda To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I can't tell if you are serious. Are you serious?

Well, that's how I'd describe logic in as simple a way as possible. Serious for me, but I don't presume to be right about it.

[Tactical Panda]

	Originally Posted by Tactical Panda To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	A is true. If A is true B is true. If B is true C is true. Thus because A is true, C is true. Stop. The. Presses. *Mind implodes, eyes get sucked into skull too*

Version 2:

If A is true B is true.
If B is true C is true.

Thus if A is true, C is true!

*Mind implodes in three quarters of the time it took last time*

---------- Post added 06-19-2012 at 04:31 AM ----------

Version 3:

A.
We don't know about B yet.

LOGIC.

---------- Post added 06-19-2012 at 04:33 AM ----------

Version 4:

Condition A causes B.
Condition A is met.
B is caused.

Logical, even if emperically utterly wrong for reasons not included in the steps given.
E.g. Condition A causes B if C but not D and if E but not F...

[Tahiti]

"A recognized and widely accepted set of distinguishable symbols which enables conclusions. Complexity may vary."

I hate that definition...

uhhhhhhhh....

uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh................

"Where 2 or more differing symbols in appearance with the potential to have differing meanings (or the same)."

There we go!

Simple :D.

[Tactical Panda]

Lets see if we can rework it, for better or worse:

Non-assumptive appraisal of conditional relationships between two or more abstract constructs.

Or...

"Without simply guessing or assuming anything, what can we conclude from this info, Jimmy?"

[Tahiti]

	Originally Posted by Tactical Panda To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Lets see if we can rework it, for better or worse: Non-assumptive appraisal of conditional relationships between two or more abstract constructs. Or... "Without simply guessing or assuming anything, what can we conclude from this info, Jimmy?"

Human operation is based on assuming or not assuming, so that part is kind of off in an abstract sense.

For example me showing you:

A --> B

You already recognize the A and B symbols, and the --> symbol. One would have to assume you know what their meanings are.

[Tactical Panda]

	Originally Posted by GeniusPr0 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Human operation is based on assuming or not assuming, so that part is kind of off in an abstract sense. For example me showing you: A --> B You already recognize the A and B symbols, and the --> symbol. One would have to assume you know what their meanings are.

Heh, I draw distinction between simple assumption and assumption.

You can use an assumption to prove that it is correct, but that seems more complex than a simple assumption where you don't bother to re-check things.

But I was thinking along the same lines as you when I had written the thing, hence the premeditated word "simply" included in the sentence.

For example:

A simple assumption: the cow is the moon. No questions asked, nor conditions.

A non-simple asumption: a cow is the moon if we take that assumption and investigate it and it turns out to be verified later down the line.

[Monte314]

All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, all men are Socrates.

*dog swells with pride*