[LOCKSUIT]

Yay I get it now.

[LOCKSUIT]

"I'm not going to not pick you".(two negatives in English) = positive...You are going to get picked

I am hungry and full.......................I am hungry I am not hungry..................she is god I am god

cancel out self destruct annihilation

contradictions are futile!

[LOCKSUIT]

Got any more tricks like that double negatives one you can explain? Especially the more deeper ones that I may not be able to witness in the deeper chapters since I'm derailing it a big now.

[ivan.moony]

Seriously, the most interesting chapters are 11: induction and 12: resolution (deduction). It's up to you.

[LOCKSUIT]

in chapters 1-4 or so, is it true they are saying we are discovering sentence x is like sentence y by their truths being similar? I don't think that's a good way to do that..."I can drive and sit" is not "pigs look very pink and cute" even though it looks like 1 & 1, 1 & 1

This reasoning/deduction, is using truth, or something other? Explain the main ingredient...

[ivan.moony]

Induction is discovering new truths. Deduction is extracting all the possible implicitly contained truths.

[LOCKSUIT]

Ok. I took a fast scan of the site. You may know I analyze each word in the Lessons so to not miss 'anything', and so right now I did a fast heuristic and didn't listen to my old way for the time being. The chapters seem to be named and there's a pattern: PROPOSITIONAL Logic>Analysis>Proofs>Resolution, then RELATIONAL, then HERBRAND, below I give a brief summary of them, which may only make sense if you read it all below. I know they all don't have Analysis etc but it's, close. Can you tell me if this is close to correct, or fix it/rewrite it, or give me your own summary of the chapters?

PROPOSITIONAL - facts, etcetcetc.
Chapter1Logic - taking facts
Chapter2Analysis - looking at what they are (truths etc) 101011010010
Chapter3Proofs - comparison!!! faster way! comparing premises to conclusion proof, why 2 facts are 'same'/identical
Chapter4Resolution - a faster way

RELATIONAL - faster, looking at *individual sentences
Chapter5Logic - looking at *individual sentences
Chapter6Analysis - if we do that, then here's how to look at their truths etc
Chapter7Proofs - comparing premises to conclusion proof
Chapter8Resolution - a faster way

HERBRAND - how to but with any possible terms in an infinite language
Chapter9Logic - howto
Chapter10Analysis - howto
Chapter11Proofs - howto
Chapter12Resolution - howto
-------it seems they start using trees/hierarchies in Herbrand?

I don't think this does justice over the tricks in the lessons but it should do justice in explaining the overview of it all.

Soooo, in essence it says Herbrand is the better of the 3 ways? And it's all about taking a set of sentences and entailing it to the conclusion?
    What is the goal, and the next shallow goals? To discover mini facts? Facts? What is true/false? How? Using premises. How?

[ivan.moony]

This is the part I was talking about before. After learning some logic, you are left to yourself to connect pieces on your own, or to learn more in a hope to get answers. Going further into details brings less and less people who can answer your questions. I'm afraid I'm reaching that set of people who are unable to answer.

[LOCKSUIT]

Could it be said that, once you know Propositional Logic (chapters 1-5), you really get the just idea of what entails in Relational and Herbrand (the later chapters) even if the way is very different? It's re-iterating the same goal, but by different method, right?

[LOCKSUIT]

found this so far
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-predicate-logic-first-order-logic-second-order-logic-and-higher-order-logic

so RELATIONAL LOGIC is just FOL?
and HERBRAND is just HOL?
lol

[LOCKSUIT]

see png

IOW, having read chapters 1-5, I already have been from start-to-finish of the concept?

[ivan.moony]

Yes, relational logic described in the Stanford material is predicate (first order) logic, and it is extension of propositional logic. Higher order logic is an extension of first order logic, but it brings some of undecidability regarding to first order logic (I don't know the details).

Unfortunately, I don't know much about Herbrand logic.

But, see Herbrand's theorem for connection between propositional and predicate logic. I'm using something similar in my own research.

[LOCKSUIT]

Boolean Logic
Propositional Logic
Predicate Logic
First Order Logic
Relational Logic
Second Order Logic
Higher Order Logic
Herbrand Logic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

gotta get sleep, be back tommorow

[LOCKSUIT]

"if" switches false to true, and true to true, else you have this issue:

"If pigs fly then I will freak." Here we have a problem with their theory. If 'if' negates then it will mess up the truth of "If I'm served food then I begin eating.", whereas if 'if' doesn't negate then it makes "If pigs fly then I will freak." false when it should be true. Solution is my way. Node "pigs fly" is false but saved as true so you can speak it, "If pigs fly" is true saved, and both top nodes of these 2 in quotes are true too as long as seen as valid even if contain wrong. If anything, 'if' is a flipper that makes false/true things true. Ok. But I still believe my way. I believe the sentence is true based on its validation process even if has a wrong in it - not by the sum of its truths.

[Art]

IF is a Function that allows one to make a comparison by testing for a condition to be either True or False.
THEN basically satisfies the argument.

IF the result of Column A >27 THEN goto or use Column B
or
IF your guess is red THEN you get $100 else you get no $$