Itemized Clear Logic

ItemizedClearLogic is a working definition that describe a layout for semi-formal logic so it's easier to digest and avoids or reduces the confusion inherent in English.

Rough pseudo-example:

1. All men are Socrates

2. All Socrates are birds

3. Therefore all birds are men per the Foobian logic rule on #1 and #2

All statements are uniquely numbered or labelled (ID's). Any transformation of prior statements into a new statement require both the ID's of the "operand" statements and the source or name of the transformation being done (operator). Only one new statement is allowed per ID, and only one logic operator per ID.

If one doesn't recall what a rule is, such as The Foobian Logic Rule, they can google it. Foobian is fake for the example, by the way. Don't google it.

Note that the numbered items are not intended to be steps in an experiment, such as "first, pour liquid X in flask B". In some cases, such steps may overlap with "logic" steps, however.

--top

---

DeleteWhenCooked below

• [This is what Top considers an example of clear logic. NuffSaid.]
• Projection
• Reverse projection.
• You are welcome to work up a better draft sample if you are not satisfied with this one.
• Why? I don't care. You are the only participant here who is so insistent on peddling his personal HobbyHorses. The rest of us just get on with our projects and pursuits. Do you enjoy quibbles and arguments?
• Yes, I only argue with myself. Some non-person quibbled about the example.
• They poked fun at it. It wouldn't have existed had you not, it appears, been looking for a quarrel by creating this and related pages.
• As per above, it's a "pseudo-example". It uses made-up operators. All overly-literal people are birds :-)

---

For the record, Top, #3 doesn't follow from #1 and #2. #3 should be "All men are birds", not the other way around. --RobMandeville

I suggest you review the rules for the Foobian Logic Rule. -t

You're the one who said that there is no Foobian logic rule to review, so I defaulted to actual logic. Actual logic states that "All men are birds" follows from premises #1 and #2, but not "all birds are men". There can be birds that are not Socrates, and Socrates that are not men. Maybe in Wackyland, it follows that "all birds are men" from #1 and #2, but I don't live there. Do you? --RobMandeville

You forgot this rule:

  realShit + fakeShit = fakeShit (or at least tainted shit)

You guys are feeding the troll again. C'mon, when is this going to stop? Why is it Wikizens insist on arguing with top as if he's an actual contributor, and not a 'bot noise generator with a faulty logic circuit? [cough]

You need skeptics, not just contributors. --top

---

Attempted uses:

• ValueExistenceProofFour

---

See: ListAndSingleOperatorExplicitnessPattern

DecemberTwelve