NOTE: THIS MAY OVERLAP WITH NAG MATH:LOGIC The key thing about being logical is to make clear distinctions - vagueness isn't that useful, and most [arguments](conflicts) come from a difference of those distinctions Law of Noncontradiction - 2 contradicting propositions can't be true at the same time A. The pen is blue B. The pen is red C. THEREFORE, the pen must either be blue or red Law of Excluded Middle/Third - for each proposition, either it or its negating proposition is true A. The pen is blue B. THEREFORE, the pen must either be blue or not blue Law of Identity - 2 things are either the same in all respects, or are different in something A. The cat has (list of 237 properties), the feline has (list of same 237 properties) B. THEREFORE, the cat is the feline and there's no difference C. One distinction exists between the cat and feline D. THEREFORE, there is a legitimate difference Syllogisms are conclusions derived from multiple premises - the best way to work with syllogisms is to build a Venn Diagram with the information [Syllogism Definition, Types & Examples - Lesson | Study.com](https://study.com/academy/lesson/syllogism-definition-examples.html) Dialectical arguments are where something can't be deductive Disputation A. pose a question, framed as specifically as possible B. state the objections to the question as clearly and precisely as possible, without [bias] - the opponent must be able to agree that that's the precise framing of what they disagree with C. state the contrary idea that counteracts the objections, as precisely as possible D. give clear reasons to indicate why C is correct E. reply to the objections that would invariably arise there is a concept of "self-evidence" - the idea that something is innate, and doesn't need further discussion to prove it beyond a certain amount - this is a MAJOR sticking point for most people, but the reality of life is that there ARE things (or sliced-off aspects of the original things) that everyone agrees upon - e.g., people may disagree on whether there is good, but they ALL agree that there is something they'd deem evil MY OWN DIALECTICAL STYLE - this is necessary in a post-modern world where information is plentiful but accurate information is scarce 1. clearly articulate all the "givens" - GGGGGGGGGG 2. cast doubt on all the givens via intuition, and if any of them feel or appear uncertain, re-categorize them as uncertain - GGGGGG gggg 3. create all possible conclusions that ALL the givens can create - GGGGGGgggg -> CCCC 4. remove the uncertain "givens", then add in the additional conclusions that derive from that mechanism - GGGGGG -> CCCCccc 5. obsess about the uncertain "givens" to be abundantly clear beyond any discomfort that they're true or false - gggg -> gg 6. derive all realistic conclusions, given those facts - GGGGGGgg -> CCCCc Use simon tatham's puzle games collection to indicate exclusive types of logical processing Also: Portal Bridge constructor Factorio Sokoban [Hoare logic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoare_logic) is a formal system for reasoning about the correctness of computer programs ## operational semantics [Operational semantics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operational_semantics) is a category of formal programming language semantics in which certain desired properties of a program, such as correctness, safety or security, are verified by constructing proofs from logical statements about its execution and procedures, rather than by attaching mathematical meanings to its terms (denotational semantics).