07-10-2023-2248 - LOGIC (AMERICAN, VARIOUS, DRAFT, NOTE, FICTIONARY, LORE, TALE, ETC.) (MAX INVEST FIN)(DRAFT)(CAP)(DRAFT ZAK)(DAFT)

DRAFT

USA NAC DOM

NOTES.

LOGICAL FALLACY

FLAWED REASON

COMMON SENSE

BIAS

DISTORTION

FEATURE

MECHANISM

ELEMENT

EXTENSION

PREMISE

PRECEPT

TERM

UNIT

ANTECEDENT

PRECEDENT

CLAUSE

DRAFT

SYMBOL

AXIOM

CONVENTION

VAGUE

UNKNOWN

UNCERTAIN

UNKNOWN UNKNOWN

NOT AVAILABLE

INFERRED

DEDUCED

MODIFIED DESCRIPTION TERMS

(I.E. WHERE A TERM IS INFERRED NOT RECALLED OR IMPLEMENTED ACCORDING TO PROCEDURE, MAY OR MAY NOT SUFFICE.) (DRAFT) [EXTENUATING ARGUMENTATION AND FLAWED REASON, POOR JUDGEMENT, APPEAL TO LOGOS, ERROR OF SYMPATHIES, ETC.) (DRAFT) (ERROR)

DRAFT

INFORMATION PROCESSING

INFORMATION INFORM INFORMAL

UNOFFICIAL

MISINFORMATION MISSED MISTAKE

DISINFORMATION

NEUTRALIZED CONCEPT

POLARIZED CONCEPT

DRAFT

(NEUTRAL TONE)

DRAFT

VALIDITY

LOGIC VALIDITY

DISCIPLINE 

DOMAIN

CLASSIFICATION

AVAILABILITY

TIMES

DRAFT

TRUE

FALSE

DRAFT

 

TRUTH

REASON

DRAFT

FORMULA

EQUATION

SYMBOL

CALCULATION

AXIOM

FOUNDATION

FORM

LOGICAL FORM

LOGICAL FORMULA

LOGIC SYMBOL

DRAFT

ARGUMENT VALIDITY LIMITATION, INTEGRITY OF ENCUMBENT INFORMATION OR CODE. DRAFT.

DRAFT

LOGICAL TRUTH

LOGICAL CONSEQUENCE

CORRESPONDENCE

CONDITION

CONDITIONAL

LIMITATIONS

STRUCTURE

FUNCTION

NECESSARY AND SUFFICIENT

SATISFACTION

SOUNDNESS

PRIOR

FORMER

FOLLOWS

CONCLUSION

CONTRADICTION

AXIOMATIC TRUTH

ADAGE

WEIGHT

SCALES

ACTUALITY

REALITY

SURREALITY

IMAGINALITY

NONREALITY

UNREALITY

DEREALITY

REFUTATORY

EMPIRE

EMPIRICAL

EVIDENCE

BASE

BASE PLATE

BASE FRAME

BASE LINE

STANDARD

CRITERIA

CRITERION

VARIABLE

VALUE

ITEM LIST ITEMIZED LIST 

ORDER OF PRECEDENCE

ASSAY ASSEMBLY CATALOG INDEX

CODE

POSSIBILITY

LIMIT

BACKGROUND

ASSUMPTIONS ASSOCIATIONS PRIMING PROMPTING DISTORTION EDUCATION INDOCTRINATION ETC.. DRAFT

LIMITATIONS TERMS CONDITIONS RESTRICTIONS EXCEPTIONS EXEMPTIONS ETC.. DRAFT

SYLLOGISM

PARADOX

CONUNDRUM

UNSOLVED PROBLEMS

 

Validity doesn't require the truth of the premises, instead it merely necessitates that conclusion follows from the formers without violating the correctness of the logical form.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity_(logic)

The following argument is of the same logical form but with false premises and a false conclusion, and it is equally valid:

All cups are green. (False)

Socrates is a cup. (False)

Therefore, Socrates is green. (False)

No matter how the universe might be constructed, it could never be the case that these arguments should turn out to have simultaneously true premises but a false conclusion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity_(logic)

 

In this case, the conclusion contradicts the deductive logic of the preceding premises, rather than deriving from it. Therefore, the argument is logically 'invalid', even though the conclusion could be considered 'true' in general terms. The premise 'All men are immortal' would likewise be deemed false outside of the framework of classical logic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity_(logic)

 

LOGICIAN

RESPECTIVE

ABBREVIATION

FORM

REPRESENTATION

ILLUSTRATION 

FOLLOWING

TECHNIQUE

EMPLOY

DRAFT

A formula of a formal language is a valid formula if and only if it is true under every possible interpretation of the language. In propositional logic, they are tautologies. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity_(logic)

 

SATISFACTION

SUFFICIENT

NECESSARY

SATISFIABLE

DRAFT

 

SEMANTIC VALIDITY

DRAFT

 

SYNTAX

DICTION

DRAFT

 

LINGUISTICS

LANGUAGE

LITERATURE

DRAFT

 

Preservation

In truth-preserving validity, the interpretation under which all variables are assigned a truth value of 'true' produces a truth value of 'true'.

In a false-preserving validity, the interpretation under which all variables are assigned a truth value of 'false' produces a truth value of 'false'.^[5]

Preservation properties	Logical connective sentences
True and false preserving:	Proposition  • Logical conjunction (AND, ${\displaystyle \wedge }$ )  • Logical disjunction (OR, ${\displaystyle \vee }$ )
True preserving only:	Tautology ( ${\displaystyle \mathrm{\top }}$ )  • Biconditional (XNOR, ${\displaystyle \leftrightarrow }$ )  • Implication ( ${\displaystyle \to }$ )  • Converse implication ( ${\displaystyle \leftarrow }$ )
False preserving only:	Contradiction ( ${\displaystyle \mathrm{\perp }}$ ) • Exclusive disjunction (XOR, ${\displaystyle \oplus }$ )  • Nonimplication ( ${\displaystyle \nrightarrow }$ )  • Converse nonimplication ( ${\displaystyle \nleftarrow }$ )
Non-preserving:	Negation ( ${\displaystyle \mathrm{\neg }}$ )  • Alternative denial (NAND, ${\displaystyle \uparrow }$ ) • Joint denial (NOR, ${\displaystyle \downarrow }$ )

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity_(logic)

 

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Invalid proof" redirects here. For any type of invalid proof besides mathematics, see Fallacy.

"0 = 1" redirects here. For the algebraic structure where this equality holds, see Null ring.

In mathematics, certain kinds of mistaken proof are often exhibited, and sometimes collected, as illustrations of a concept called mathematical fallacy. There is a distinction between a simple mistake and a mathematical fallacy in a proof, in that a mistake in a proof leads to an invalid proof while in the best-known examples of mathematical fallacies there is some element of concealment or deception in the presentation of the proof.

For example, the reason why validity fails may be attributed to a division by zero that is hidden by algebraic notation. There is a certain quality of the mathematical fallacy: as typically presented, it leads not only to an absurd result, but does so in a crafty or clever way.^[1] Therefore, these fallacies, for pedagogic reasons, usually take the form of spurious proofs of obvious contradictions. Although the proofs are flawed, the errors, usually by design, are comparatively subtle, or designed to show that certain steps are conditional, and are not applicable in the cases that are the exceptions to the rules.

The traditional way of presenting a mathematical fallacy is to give an invalid step of deduction mixed in with valid steps, so that the meaning of fallacy is here slightly different from the logical fallacy. The latter usually applies to a form of argument that does not comply with the valid inference rules of logic, whereas the problematic mathematical step is typically a correct rule applied with a tacit wrong assumption. Beyond pedagogy, the resolution of a fallacy can lead to deeper insights into a subject (e.g., the introduction of Pasch's axiom of Euclidean geometry,^[2] the five colour theorem of graph theory). Pseudaria, an ancient lost book of false proofs, is attributed to Euclid.^[3]

Mathematical fallacies exist in many branches of mathematics. In elementary algebra, typical examples may involve a step where division by zero is performed, where a root is incorrectly extracted or, more generally, where different values of a multiple valued function are equated. Well-known fallacies also exist in elementary Euclidean geometry and calculus.^[4][5] 

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

 

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is about numerical curiosities. For the technical mathematical concept of coincidence, see Coincidence point.

A mathematical coincidence is said to occur when two expressions with no direct relationship show a near-equality which has no apparent theoretical explanation.

For example, there is a near-equality close to the round number 1000 between powers of 2 and powers of 10:

${\displaystyle 2^{10}=1024\approx 1000={10}^3.}$

Some mathematical coincidences are used in engineering when one expression is taken as an approximation of another. 

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

 

Mathematical beauty is the aesthetic pleasure derived from the abstractness, purity, simplicity, depth or orderliness of mathematics. Mathematicians may express this pleasure by describing mathematics (or, at least, some aspect of mathematics) as beautiful or describe mathematics as an art form, (a position taken by G. H. Hardy^[1]) or, at a minimum, as a creative activity. Comparisons are made with music and poetry.  

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

"Personal attack" redirects here. For the Wikipedia policy, see Wikipedia:No personal attacks.

Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a term that refers to several types of arguments, most of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion to some irrelevant but often highly charged issue. The most common form of this fallacy is "A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong".

The valid types of ad hominem arguments are generally only encountered in specialized philosophical usage. These typically refer to the dialectical strategy of using the target's own beliefs and arguments against them, while not agreeing with the validity of those beliefs and arguments. Ad hominem arguments were first studied in ancient Greece; John Locke revived the examination of ad hominem arguments in the 17th century. Many contemporary politicians routinely use ad hominem attacks, which can be encapsulated to a derogatory nickname for a political opponent. 

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

 

A fallacy is reasoning that is logically invalid, or that undermines the logical validity of an argument. All forms of human communication can contain fallacies. This is a list of well-known fallacies.

Because of their variety, fallacies are challenging to classify. They can be classified by their structure (formal fallacies) or content (informal fallacies). Informal fallacies, the larger group, may then be subdivided into categories such as improper presumption, faulty generalization, and error in assigning causation and relevance, among others.

The use of fallacies is common when the speaker's goal of achieving common agreement is more important to them than utilizing sound reasoning. When fallacies are used, the premise should be recognized as not well-grounded, the conclusion as unproven (but not necessarily false), and the argument as unsound.^[1] 

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

 

Terminology

The Latin phase argumentum ad hominem stands for "argument against the person".^[8] "Ad" corresponds to "against" but it could also mean "to" or "towards".^[9]

The terms ad mulierem and ad feminam have been used specifically when the person receiving the criticism is female.^[10]

Types of ad hominem arguments

See also: List of fallacies

Fallacious ad hominem reasoning is categorized among informal fallacies, more precisely as a genetic fallacy, a subcategory of fallacies of irrelevance.^[11]

Ad hominem fallacies can be separated in various different types, among others are tu quoque, circumstantial, guilt by association, and abusive ad hominem. All of them are similar to the general scheme of ad hominem argument, that is instead of dealing with the essence of someone's argument or trying to refute it, the interlocutor is attacking the character of the proponent of the argument and concluding that it is a sufficient reason to drop the initial argument.^[12] 

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

 

"Apodictic", also spelled "apodeictic" (Ancient Greek: ἀποδεικτικός, "capable of demonstration"), is an adjectival expression from Aristotelean logic that refers to propositions that are demonstrably, necessarily or self-evidently true.^[1] Apodicticity or apodixis is the corresponding abstract noun, referring to logical certainty.

Apodictic propositions contrast with assertoric propositions, which merely assert that something is (or is not) true, and with problematic propositions, which assert only the possibility of something's being true. Apodictic judgments are clearly provable or logically certain. For instance, "Two plus two equals four" is apodictic, because it is true by definition. "Chicago is larger than Omaha" is assertoric. "A corporation could be wealthier than a country" is problematic. In Aristotelian logic, "apodictic" is opposed to "dialectic", as scientific proof is opposed to philosophical reasoning. Kant contrasted "apodictic" with "problematic" and "assertoric" in the Critique of Pure Reason, on page A70/B95.^[2] 

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

 

In philosophy, a formal fallacy, deductive fallacy, logical fallacy or non sequitur^[1] (/ˌnɒn ˈsɛkwɪtər/; Latin for "[it] does not follow") is a pattern of reasoning rendered invalid by a flaw in its logical structure that can neatly be expressed in a standard logic system, for example propositional logic.^[2] It is defined as a deductive argument that is invalid. The argument itself could have true premises, but still have a false conclusion.^[3] Thus, a formal fallacy is a fallacy where deduction goes wrong, and is no longer a logical process. This may not affect the truth of the conclusion, since validity and truth are separate in formal logic.

While a logical argument is a non sequitur if, and only if, it is invalid, the term "non sequitur" typically refers to those types of invalid arguments which do not constitute formal fallacies covered by particular terms (e.g., affirming the consequent). In other words, in practice, "non sequitur" refers to an unnamed formal fallacy.

A special case is a mathematical fallacy, an intentionally invalid mathematical proof, often with the error subtle and somehow concealed. Mathematical fallacies are typically crafted and exhibited for educational purposes, usually taking the form of spurious proofs of obvious contradictions.

A formal fallacy is contrasted with an informal fallacy which may have a valid logical form and yet be unsound because one or more premises are false. A formal fallacy; however, may have a true premise, but a false conclusion. 

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

 

The presence of a formal fallacy in a deductive argument does not imply anything about the argument's premises or its conclusion (see fallacy fallacy). Both may actually be true, or even more probable as a result of the argument (e.g. appeal to authority), but the deductive argument is still invalid because the conclusion does not follow from the premises in the manner described. By extension, an argument can contain a formal fallacy even if the argument is not a deductive one; for instance an inductive argument that incorrectly applies principles of probability or causality can be said to commit a formal fallacy. 

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

 

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Forward reasoning" redirects here. For other uses, see Forward chaining.

Modus ponens

Type	Deductive argument form Rule of inference
Field	Classical logic Propositional calculus
Statement	${\displaystyle P}$ implies ${\displaystyle Q}$. ${\displaystyle P}$ is true. Therefore ${\displaystyle Q}$ must also be true.
Symbolic statement	${\displaystyle P\to Q,P⊢Q}$

Transformation rules
Propositional calculus
Rules of inference
Implication introduction / elimination (modus ponens) Biconditional introduction / elimination Conjunction introduction / elimination Disjunction introduction / elimination Disjunctive / hypothetical syllogism Constructive / destructive dilemma Absorption / modus tollens / modus ponendo tollens Negation introduction
Rules of replacement
Associativity Commutativity Distributivity Double negation De Morgan's laws Transposition Material implication Exportation Tautology
Predicate logic
Rules of inference
Universal generalization / instantiation Existential generalization / instantiation

In propositional logic, modus ponens (/ˈmoʊdəs ˈpoʊnɛnz/; MP), also known as modus ponendo ponens (Latin for "method of putting by placing"),^[1] implication elimination, or affirming the antecedent,^[2] is a deductive argument form and rule of inference.^[3] It can be summarized as "P implies Q. P is true. Therefore Q must also be true."

Modus ponens is closely related to another valid form of argument, modus tollens. Both have apparently similar but invalid forms such as affirming the consequent, denying the antecedent, and evidence of absence. Constructive dilemma is the disjunctive version of modus ponens. Hypothetical syllogism is closely related to modus ponens and sometimes thought of as "double modus ponens."

The history of modus ponens goes back to antiquity.^[4] The first to explicitly describe the argument form modus ponens was Theophrastus.^[5] It, along with modus tollens, is one of the standard patterns of inference that can be applied to derive chains of conclusions that lead to the desired goal. 

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

 

Metalogic is the study of the metatheory of logic. Whereas logic studies how logical systems can be used to construct valid and sound arguments, metalogic studies the properties of logical systems.^[1] Logic concerns the truths that may be derived using a logical system; metalogic concerns the truths that may be derived about the languages and systems that are used to express truths.^[2]

The basic objects of metalogical study are formal languages, formal systems, and their interpretations. The study of interpretation of formal systems is the branch of mathematical logic that is known as model theory, and the study of deductive systems is the branch that is known as proof theory. 

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

 

In mathematical logic, formation rules are rules for describing which strings of symbols formed from the alphabet of a formal language are syntactically valid within the language.^[1] These rules only address the location and manipulation of the strings of the language. It does not describe anything else about a language, such as its semantics (i.e. what the strings mean). (See also formal grammar). 

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_system#Deductive_inference

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

 

Formal systems

Main article: Formal system

A formal system (also called a logical calculus, or a logical system) consists of a formal language together with a deductive apparatus (also called a deductive system). The deductive apparatus may consist of a set of transformation rules (also called inference rules) or a set of axioms, or have both. A formal system is used to derive one expression from one or more other expressions. Propositional and predicate calculi are examples of formal systems. 

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

 

TYPES OF ARGUMENTS

GLOBAL APHASIA (BRAIN SURGEONS) (B-MOV DREAMS MARTIN FUTURE DREAMS) (NIGGERHOOD) (TO ZAK BETTEY ET AL) (DRAFT)

BLACK SCHEMES IN MATHS AND LOGIC, DANGER OF INFERIOR RACES AND THEFT FROM AAK BETTEY NOT DON. DRAFT. 

ABANDONMENT ATTEMPTS BY ZAK THAT FAILED. 

FAILED LOGIC AND FORMAL FALLACY HOW MY WORK BEGAN.

RETIRED AGENTS, ASK ME FOR A PARTIAL. DRAFT

COMMON SENSE ERROR OF POLITICS REDIRECTION BY MED CORP LIC FRAUD ERROR CLAIMS (MISLDAR)(QUEEN)

DRAFT

(RUSSIAN ESPIONAGE)

DRAFT

ESPIONAGE ON FEDERATION OF CHINA

DRAFT

(WHAT HURTS THE ENEMY MOST BROTHER)

DRAFT

AMERICAN MADE ZAK SAM MY BROTHER.

DRAFT

SUBORDINATE RANK PRISON BRIEFING -10000/1500/-5M/-500M/ETC.. DRAFT

DRAFT

OK BUT THERE WER EMORE OF US... (ARGU, POINT, LINE, STATE, SEN, DISAPPEARNCES, EXPUNGEMENTS, SYSTEM OF AMERICAN INVASION)(DRAFT)(KEEP THE INE DO ANOTHER STIME) (DRAFT) (KEEP THE LINE DO THE TIME) (DRAFT) (FALLACY FORMALITY GRADE)(DRAFT)

DRAFT

FORMAL FALLACY ERROR

DEFER TO THE PRINCIPLE

REFER TO THE PREMISE

COMPLEX ARGUMENTS

ADVANCED MATHEMATICS

SHOOT THE MIDDLE OF MY ENGINEER (PIECE OF CONTINUOUS, DISCRETE COMMUNICATION, NON-COMMUNICATIVE, OBSTRUCTION, ETC.) (DRAFT)(PIECEWISE FUNCTION WELL FORMED FORMULA DRAFT; RECPIRIOCITY COINCIDENCE PONT ; NO APP THEOR EXP ; HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISM ; ABSTRACT NOUN ; UNDEFINED ARTIHEMIC ERROR  ; ETC..)(DRAFT)

STEAL A MANS LIFE (AD HOMINEM)

DIFFERENCE OF SQUARES

FUNDAMENTAL ATTRIBUTION ERROR

DRAFT

FOUNDATIONAL COMMUNICATION LANGUAGE ENGLISH COORDINATION EDUCAITON SYSTEM ; AD HOMINEM ; SEMANTIC WEIGHTS ; BENEFICIENCE AS THE GOOD PEOPLE REPEATER TIMING ALL OF TIME CLAIMS (DISTORTION)(DRAFT) ; WEIGHT SCALES PHYSICS. DRAFT. DRAFT. 

SEGREGATION DISCRIMINATION SOCIAL DISTANCEING MASK WEARING IN PUBLIC HOUSE ARREST RESTRAINING ORDERARY STAY AT HOME ORDER (E.G. PANDEMIC 2020 PRACTICE, PANDEMIC PRACTICE 2019-2023)(DRAFT)

DIFFICULT PROCESS TO WITHDRAW, RETREAT, RETIRE, ETC., FROM SOCIETY OR TO RESPECT BEAUTY DIFFERENCE. DRAFT. INCLUDING PERSPECTIVE. DRAFT.

DRAFT

STRONG LAW OF SMALL NUMBERS

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

MONOTONE

NEUTRAL TONE

DRAFT

HOSTILE

HOSTAGE

CONTAINMENT (ALLOWANCE (PERMITTANCE OR ALLOWANCE TO REFRAIN INHIBITION EXERCISE OR APPEARANCE OR ETC., REST, NOT INTERACT, NOT ENGAGE, NO EXERCISE, NOT NOT EXERCISE, NOT CATEGORIZE, NOT OBSERVIZE, NOT EXPERIENCIZE, NOT EXPERIMENTIZE, NOT HYPOTHESIZE, NOT DEREALIZE, NOT FEIGN REALIZE, NOT PIETIZE OR WEIGHT, ETC.)(DRAFT), PERMISSION TEMP VAGUE NOT ACTUAL NOT STATEMENT NOT REAL IMPLIED LIMITATIONS ETC., ETC..)(DRAFT)

DRAFT

FALLACY SCHEME

SCHEMA DETECTION

LOGICAL CERTAINTY

SELF-EVIDENT

DRAFT

POLARITY AND POSITIVISIM (PSUEDOSCIENCE AND EDUCATION SYSTEM FAILURE ; FULL SYSTEM FAILURE ; FALSE EDUCATION ; FALSE DISCIPLINE ; PSYCHOTIC STRUCTURALIZATION WITH FLAWED FOUNDATION ; FAILED SCIENCE AND OBSERVATION (MENTAL ILLNESS) ; FRANCE, RUSSIA, PSYCHOPATHS, BACK LIST, DAVTOM, NOR FRANKEN EXEMPT, ETC.)(DRAFT)

FALLACY FALLACY BEAR BEAR

RULE OF INTERFERENCE

RULE OF INFERENCE

ANTIQUITY DILEMMA

ABSENCE

EXPECTING A NEVER

MISES PERTYS ATE ALL THE FRUIT AT THE BANQUET OF FIREFIGHTERS ON HER OWN VOLITION INTEREST ENTRANCE COULD NOT RESIST CLOAKED FOOD. DRAFT.

GRIGORY ATE AND ATE AND ATE AND ATE AND ATE ALL OF THE FECES. DRAFT.

EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE

CONSEQUENTIA INQUISITIONATORIUM

SANATORIUM SANATARIUM

ABSENTIA EVIDENTIALIS

NO CENTRAL LIMIT AND CALCULS 

FAILED MATHEMATICAL REPRESENTATION 

FAILED TRANFORMS AND DECOY LANGUAGE

CODE LANG FAILURE 

BASE QUEEN

BASE CODE

BASE LINE

JUNK OCCUPANTS

ACCIDENTAL ERROR

ERROR

UNANTICIPATED INTERPRETATION

SURPRISE TRUTH

ACCUMULATION TIME

DECISION COMPLEXITY

BURDEN OF PROOF

MOCKERY OF AUTH

FALSE AUTH FALLS

DRUG LORD PREVAILS NOT THE MAN LEFT BEHIND

DRAFT

VAR ARG LIST

ARG SCHEME

FALLICIOUS ARG

(FALSE DRUGS LORDS)

DRAFTT

POLYMORPH

MORPHEUS

DRAFT

VARIADIC FUNCTIONALITY

SCIENCE

CORRECT ARGUMENTS

PROPER

PROPRIETARY

KIBBLES

RECTITUDE

DRAFT

OBJECT OF PREPOSITION

ALGEBRAIC DATA TYPE

STRAWMAN ARG

DRAFT

The fallacy of composition is an informal fallacy that arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole. A trivial example might be: "This tire is made of rubber; therefore, the vehicle of which it is a part is also made of rubber." This is fallacious, because vehicles are made with a variety of parts, most of which are not made of rubber. The fallacy of composition can apply even when a fact is true of every proper part of a greater entity, though. A more complicated example might be: "No atoms are alive. Therefore, nothing made of atoms is alive." This is a statement most people would consider incorrect, due to emergence, where the whole possesses properties not present in any of the parts.

This fallacy is related to the fallacy of hasty generalization, in which an unwarranted inference is made from a statement about a sample to a statement about the population from which it is drawn. The fallacy of composition is the converse of the fallacy of division. 

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

GENERALIZATION

HEURISTICS (PSYCHOLOGY) (COGNITIVE BIAS, ETC.) (DRAFT)

MAXIMIMIZATION, MINIMIZATION, LENS, PERSPECTIVE, BUFFERING, PADDING, FLUFFING, ETC.. DRAFT

ESTIMATION APPROXIMATION GUESS GAUGE (NON-APPLICATION, NO RECOMMENDATION, NON-ENDORSEMENT, NO FURTHER/ETC., ETC.) (DRAFT)

[NOT STATEMENT/IMPLICATION/CLAIM/DEENDORSEMENT/ANTIENDORSEMENT/NOTENDORSEMENT/NOT-NOT-ENDORSEMENT/ETC., NO DISRESPECT (E.G. BEGINNER ENGLISH MEANT, INTERMEDIATE ENGLISH INTENDED, ETC.). DRAFT]

CIRCUMSCRIPTION CIRCUMSTANTIAL CIRCUMSPECTION CIRCUMFERENCE ETC. DRAFT

 

• Synecdoche, the figure of speech of two forms:
  • Pars pro toto using the word for a part by way of referring to the whole
  • Totum pro parte using the word for the whole by way of referring to a part

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

 

INDUCTIVE FALLACY

VERBAL FALLACY

RELEVANCE FALLACY

DRAFT

MASKED MAN

PHANTOM OF THE OPERA

PRIMING, PROMPTING, MISLEADING QUESTION/CLAIM/ETC., COINCIDENT, ACCIDENT OF SPEECH, ERROR OF SPEECH, LANGUAGE OR LINGUISTIC MISCALCULATION, COMPLEX ERROR, ERROR, ETC.. DRAFT

DRAFT

CONVERSE

DRAFT

reification

natural language
quantifier shift

Examples

1. Every person has a woman that is their mother. Therefore, there is a woman that is the mother of every person.

${\displaystyle \mathrm{\forall }x\mathrm{\exists }y(Px\to (Wy\wedge M(yx)))⊢\mathrm{\exists }y\mathrm{\forall }x(Px\to (Wy\wedge M(yx)))}$

It is fallacious to conclude that there is one woman who is the mother of all people.

However, if the major premise ("every person has a woman that is their mother") is assumed to be true, then it is valid to conclude that there is some woman who is any given person's mother. 

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

 

common fallacies

illicit conversion

affirming the consequent

distinctions

background

discipline

text

draft

 

quotation out of context, equivocation

illegal maneuvers in conversation, public speaking, debate, etc..

illicit major illicit minor

illegitimacy

draft

 

circular reasoning

affirming a disjunct

points

draft

denying the antecedent

denying the queen

plot to deny the queen

plot to steal from the king

draft

 

existentialism

exit

fatalism

draft

 

converse accident

inverse

draft

 

suppressed correlative

ancedotal evidence

hidden vatiable

draft

 

faulty generalization

illicit transferrence

draft

 

false dilemma

limitations of information and knowledge

solutionary

draft

overwhelmin exempta

draft

syntactic ambiguity

decontext

draft

argument from anecdote

draft

red herring

decoy

draft

rationalization

justification

draft

discipline closure

failed self-construction

non-generalizable

in-group condition violation by america

retired, obsolete

limitation

limited application only

draft

classification system errors inferior rank not defense escalation of privilege moving the base artificial inflation by title moved the don by accident ; wishful think wishes magical thinking ; etc.. draft

draft

security standard and essay declination concerning maladaptation of future children of americans and genetic disease diversification (differentiation)(Draft). nobility fraud and privlege misuse (to use another privilege). (draft)

draft

Negative conclusion from affirmative premises is a syllogistic fallacy committed when a categorical syllogism has a negative conclusion yet both premises are affirmative. The inability of affirmative premises to reach a negative conclusion is usually cited as one of the basic rules of constructing a valid categorical syllogism.

Statements in syllogisms can be identified as the following forms:

• a: All A is B. (affirmative)
• e: No A is B. (negative)
• i: Some A is B. (affirmative)
• o: Some A is not B. (negative)

The rule states that a syllogism in which both premises are of form a or i (affirmative) cannot reach a conclusion of form e or o (negative). Exactly one of the premises must be negative to construct a valid syllogism with a negative conclusion. (A syllogism with two negative premises commits the related fallacy of exclusive premises.)

Example (invalid aae form):

Premise: All colonels are officers.

Premise: All officers are soldiers.

Conclusion: Therefore, no colonels are soldiers.

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

advanced weapons and codes. 

where logic fails and the fallacy fails somwhere somewhay. draft

draft

positivism and trends of logic discipline and application, missing information. draft

draft

base rate fallacy

draft

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not to be confused with False conjunction.

The conjunction fallacy (also known as the Linda problem) is an inference from an array of particulars, in violation of the laws of probability, that a conjoint set of two or more conclusions is likelier than any single member of that same set. It is a type of formal fallacy. 

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

 

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Statistical independence)

Part of a series on statistics
Probability theory
Probability Axioms Determinism System Indeterminism Randomness
Probability space Sample space Event Collectively exhaustive events Elementary event Mutual exclusivity Outcome Singleton Experiment Bernoulli trial Probability distribution Bernoulli distribution Binomial distribution Normal distribution Probability measure Random variable Bernoulli process Continuous or discrete Expected value Markov chain Observed value Random walk Stochastic process
Complementary event Joint probability Marginal probability Conditional probability
Independence Conditional independence Law of total probability Law of large numbers Bayes' theorem Boole's inequality
Venn diagram Tree diagram
v t e

Independence is a fundamental notion in probability theory, as in statistics and the theory of stochastic processes. Two events are independent, statistically independent, or stochastically independent^[1] if, informally speaking, the occurrence of one does not affect the probability of occurrence of the other or, equivalently, does not affect the odds. Similarly, two random variables are independent if the realization of one does not affect the probability distribution of the other.

When dealing with collections of more than two events, two notions of independence need to be distinguished. The events are called pairwise independent if any two events in the collection are independent of each other, while mutual independence (or collective independence) of events means, informally speaking, that each event is independent of any combination of other events in the collection. A similar notion exists for collections of random variables. Mutual independence implies pairwise independence, but not the other way around. In the standard literature of probability theory, statistics, and stochastic processes, independence without further qualification usually refers to mutual independence. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_(probability_theory)

 

IDEAL

REAL

 

PREDATOR IDEALLY BY DEFINITION SUPPORT AND AS ENDORSED BY EDUCATION SYSTEM USA NAC DOM (UNITED STATES ZAK) MAY APPRECIATE NO STATE OR LINK. DRAFT.

CHAINING, CHUNKING, HUMANS, ERRORS, INFERIOR SPECIES, ETC.. DRAFT

MAGICAL THINK WISHES WISH THINK CONCOCTORY MINDARY ETC.. DRAFT 

NO PROOF EXISTS, THE DATA FAILS, ETC.. DRAFT 

REAL CONSTRUCT AND CONDITIONS, ENVIRONMENT, DEFINES, BOUNDS, CONTAINMENT, PERCEPTION, CAPACITY, INCAPACITATION, ETC.. DRAFT

DRAFT

 

ARTIFICIAL CATEGORY, ENGLISH, STEREOTYPE, STIGMA, WAR, LANGUAGE, UNPAID DUES TO GANGS, STOLE DRUGS WORSE THAN YOUR LIFE, ETC.. DRAFT

WAR V NLAB DRAFT

NO TRACE CORRUPT CONFOUNDED THE EVIDENCE DRAFT

DELIMITER DRAFT

QUEEN FAL

DRAFT

ARTIFICIAL CONSTRUCT OF STATUS KNOW TO EVIDENCE STRONG GENE TENDENCY TO DEFORMATION, GRAT. DRAFT.

RUS ESP

DRAFT

HIGHEST RAN SPY ALL COL. DRAFT

DRAFT

LEGEND OF THE EX PAT OVAL. 

DRAFT

flattering appeal to logos pathos ethos recruitment. draft

draft

solicitation begging the question draft

draft

axioms determinisms identifier descriptor determinant undefined

possible observation phenomenon experientialism existence etc. draft

probability likelihood heuristics etc.. 

collectively exhaustive events, a series or sequence of times, alter-realm, etc. draft

indeterminanism, randomness, stochastics, etc.. draft

contingencies, constraints, implied, etc.. draft

confound, conundrum, paradox, unsolved, solution, etc.. draft

conditional independence, joint probability, etc.. draft

pairwise independent, mutually exclusive outcome, etc.. draft

Similarly, two random variables are independent if the realization of one does not affect the probability distribution of the other. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_(probability_theory)

 

TOPOLOGICAL SPACE, MEASURABLE SPACE, SAMPLE SPACE, ETC.. DRAFT

 

Notice that it is not necessary here to require that the probability distribution factorizes for all possible ${\displaystyle k}$-element subsets as in the case for ${\displaystyle n}$ events. This is not required because e.g. ${\displaystyle F_{X_1,X_2,X_3}(x_1,x_2,x_3)=F_{X_1}(x_1)\cdot F_{X_2}(x_2)\cdot F_{X_3}(x_3)}$ implies ${\displaystyle F_{X_1,X_3}(x_1,x_3)=F_{X_1}(x_1)\cdot F_{X_3}(x_3)}$.

The measure-theoretically inclined may prefer to substitute events ${\displaystyle \{X\in A\}}$ for events ${\displaystyle \{X\le x\}}$ in the above definition, where ${\displaystyle A}$ is any Borel set. That definition is exactly equivalent to the one above when the values of the random variables are real numbers. It has the advantage of working also for complex-valued random variables or for random variables taking values in any measurable space (which includes topological spaces endowed by appropriate σ-algebras). 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_(probability_theory)

 

Likewise, a finite family of σ-algebras ${\displaystyle ({\tau }_i{)}_{i\in I}}$, where ${\displaystyle I}$ is an index set, is said to be independent if and only if

${\displaystyle \mathrm{\forall }{\left(A_i\right)}_{i\in I}\in {\prod }_{i\in I}{\tau }_i:\mathrm{P}\left({\bigcap }_{i\in I}{A}_i\right)={\prod }_{i\in I}\mathrm{P}\left(A_i\right)}$

and an infinite family of σ-algebras is said to be independent if all its finite subfamilies are independent. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_(probability_theory)

 

The new definition relates to the previous ones very directly:

• Two events are independent (in the old sense) if and only if the σ-algebras that they generate are independent (in the new sense). The σ-algebra generated by an event ${\displaystyle E\in \mathrm{\Sigma }}$ is, by definition,

${\displaystyle \sigma (\{E\})=\{\mathrm{\varnothing },E,\mathrm{\Omega }\setminus E,\mathrm{\Omega }\}.}$

• Two random variables ${\displaystyle X}$ and ${\displaystyle Y}$ defined over ${\displaystyle \mathrm{\Omega }}$ are independent (in the old sense) if and only if the σ-algebras that they generate are independent (in the new sense). The σ-algebra generated by a random variable ${\displaystyle X}$ taking values in some measurable space ${\displaystyle S}$ consists, by definition, of all subsets of ${\displaystyle \mathrm{\Omega }}$ of the form ${\displaystyle X^{-1}(U)}$, where ${\displaystyle U}$ is any measurable subset of ${\displaystyle S}$.

Using this definition, it is easy to show that if ${\displaystyle X}$ and ${\displaystyle Y}$ are random variables and ${\displaystyle Y}$ is constant, then ${\displaystyle X}$ and ${\displaystyle Y}$ are independent, since the σ-algebra generated by a constant random variable is the trivial σ-algebra ${\displaystyle \{\varnothing ,\mathrm{\Omega }\}}$. Probability zero events cannot affect independence so independence also holds if ${\displaystyle Y}$ is only Pr-almost surely constant. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_(probability_theory)

 

VERACITY VERITY VERILY ETC.. DRAFT

VALIDITY RELEVANCE ETC.. DRAFT

Properties

Self-independence

Note that an event is independent of itself if and only if

${\displaystyle \mathrm{P}(A)=\mathrm{P}(A\cap A)=\mathrm{P}(A)\cdot \mathrm{P}(A)⟺\mathrm{P}(A)=0\text{ or }\mathrm{P}(A)=1.}$

Thus an event is independent of itself if and only if it almost surely occurs or its complement almost surely occurs; this fact is useful when proving zero–one laws.^[8]

Expectation and covariance

Main article: Correlation and dependence

If ${\displaystyle X}$ and ${\displaystyle Y}$ are statistically independent random variables, then the expectation operator ${\displaystyle \mathrm{E}}$ has the property

${\displaystyle \mathrm{E}[X^n{Y}^m]=\mathrm{E}[X^n]\mathrm{E}[Y^m],}$ ^{[9]: p. 10}

and the covariance ${\displaystyle \mathrm{cov}[X,Y]}$ is zero, as follows from

${\displaystyle \mathrm{cov}[X,Y]=\mathrm{E}[XY]-\mathrm{E}[X]\mathrm{E}[Y].}$

The converse does not hold: if two random variables have a covariance of 0 they still may be not independent. See uncorrelated.

Similarly for two stochastic processes ${\displaystyle {\left\{X_t\right\}}_{t\in \mathcal{T}}}$ and ${\displaystyle {\left\{Y_t\right\}}_{t\in \mathcal{T}}}$: If they are independent, then they are uncorrelated.^{[10]: p. 151} 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_(probability_theory)

 

Characteristic function

Two random variables ${\displaystyle X}$ and ${\displaystyle Y}$ are independent if and only if the characteristic function of the random vector ${\displaystyle (X,Y)}$ satisfies

${\displaystyle {\phi }_{(X,Y)}(t,s)={\phi }_X(t)\cdot {\phi }_Y(s).}$

In particular the characteristic function of their sum is the product of their marginal characteristic functions:

${\displaystyle {\phi }_{X+Y}(t)={\phi }_X(t)\cdot {\phi }_Y(t),}$

though the reverse implication is not true. Random variables that satisfy the latter condition are called subindependent. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_(probability_theory)

 

Triple-independence but no pairwise-independence

It is possible to create a three-event example in which

${\displaystyle \mathrm{P}(A\cap B\cap C)=\mathrm{P}(A)\mathrm{P}(B)\mathrm{P}(C),}$

and yet no two of the three events are pairwise independent (and hence the set of events are not mutually independent).^[11] This example shows that mutual independence involves requirements on the products of probabilities of all combinations of events, not just the single events as in this example. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_(probability_theory)

 

PERSPECTIVE. DRAFT

EVENT 

COUPLED EVENT ; TWO OF THREE MAGIC 

SET RANDOM EMPTY UNDEFINED NON-EXISTENT NON-IMPLEMENTED ETC. DRAFT

MUTUAL INDEPENDENCE, INDEPENDENT, ILLUSORY RELATION, ILLUSORY CORRELATION, ETC..

PREDICTION PROPHECY CAUSE COST BENEFIT EFFECT ETC.. DRAFT (ECONOMICS BIBLE RELIGION TESTING DICING GAMBLING ETC.) (DRAFT)

DISPARATE PLANE IRRELEVANCE CONFOUND OVERLOAD AND FALLACY 

RELEVANCE NULL VOID DECEASED (GRIGORY MAIRANOVSKY 1964)(SOVIET UNION)(DRAFT)(USA NAC DOM CONSPIRACY THEORY)(CIA)(DRAFT)

ASSOCIATION (FLAWS), CORRELATION IS NOT CAUCASTION, HISSION, FRAUD, PERCEPTION ERRORS, SENSATION ERROR AND MEMORY ERROR (E.G. IMPLANT)(E.G. SIGNAL CROSSING PATH OR ERROR)(DRAFT), COGNITION (E.G. UNUAL, UNIONARY, ETC.), ETC.. DRAFT

DRAFT

EXPONENTIAL PROBABILITY

MULTIPLE

ERROR WITH MULTIPLICATION OF PRIMES MISSING NUMBERS MISSING VALUE SCALE NUMBERLINE WHOLE NUMBER IMAGINARY ZERO UNDER SCORE ONE LOGIC-REASON EXAMPLES OF PEOPLE AND TIMES (HUMAN INTELLIGENCE)(DRAFT), WHY A NUMBER AND ONE IS SUPPOSED TO BE A MULTIPLE OF ITSELF (VAR)(SP)(CONSTRUCTION ERROR POSSIBLE STANDARD PHRASE ERROR APPRECIATED ETC.)(DRAFT)(POSSIBLE)(DRAFT)(UNCERTAIN)(DRAFT), ETC.. DRAFT

DRAFT

GODELS THEOREM

PROBLEM WITH MATHS

UNSOLVED PROBLEMS

DRAFT

ESPIONAGE

SPAIN

BROWNS

LIMITATIONS FEDERAL

LIMITATIONS FOREIGN TO USA NAC DOM

DELIMIT

DRAFT

SUB-GROPS FRECKS, MIX, SURG PAT, EX-PAT, FAT, SHORT, DRUGS/TESTS/CLONES/SHELLS/SURG/CALIB/<1900/1300/-3000/-10000/FUNKLES/RUS-NIGS/ETC., DRUGS, SUBJECTS, EX-SUBS, EX-CONS, TRAD-EX-CONS, ETC.. DRAFT

DRAFT

ESPION INVADERS

ESPION INVASION

MANY AM-NASTY

LAYING LAYNG ARMLESS LAYING (PRE-WAR GERMANY) (WW1) (<=1400-1800/1900)(DRAFT)(SHORT TIME, TEMP, SHORT MOMENT MAN, ONE MOMENT MAN, ONE MINUTE NIGGER, STANDARD CELL BOY (E.G. MAN), NASTY MAN LONG LINE FANTASY CAN, FLASH DOG, SELF-MADE MAJOR, BIG BROWN WAVY WOLF, WAVY BROWN MAN, WAVY BROWN, LONG LINE (SHORT)(DRAFT)(VAR)(DRAFT)(NQ)(DRAFT)(DQ)(DRAFT), INSTANT MIND, FAST DEATH QUILL LAY, TRAMPER, TROMP, CHOOSEN NIGGER, PRIME OF HIS SURFACE AND TIME KIND (NOT CERTAIN)(DRAFT), MENTAL FAND, FAN GUY, FANTASY KING, DADDY LAYING, AMRLESS LAYING, ARMLESS LAYING, AZTEC LAYING, ETC.. DRAFT)(DRAFT)

DRAFT

FIXATION

COGNITIVE RIGIDITY BLACK WHITE LOW CONTRAST

PROCESSOR LIMIT QUEUE MEMORY LOW BATTERY LOW ERROR ETC.. DRAFT

DRAFT

PURITY INTEGRITY INNOCENCE ETC.. DRAFT

VARIABLE DRAFT

DRAFT

EVENT MUTUAL EXCLUSIONARY OR EXCLUSIVE OR EXCLUSIVITY

THREE EVENT INDEPENDENT AND NO RELATION, ETC.. DRAFT

CORRELATION AND CAUSATION COMPLEXIFICATION ETC.. DRAFT

PAIRWISE INDEPENDENCE PIECEWISE FUNCTION DRAFT

TRADITION (USA NAC DOM AMERICANS). EVENT INDEPENDENT. DRAFT.

CLARIFICATION QUALIFICATION QUANTIFICATION ELIGIBILITY CONDITIONS FOUNDATION OBJECTIVE ETC.. DRAFT

TWO EVENTS ARE INDEPENDENT (USA NAC DOM AMERICANS 2000S). DRAFT.

IMPLICIT PREMISE APPRECIATION. DRAFT.

DRAFT

EACH EVENT IS INDEPENDENT. SCALE. DRAFT

MOMENT INSTANT DISCRETE CONTINUOUS MEASURE DATA ETC. DRAFT

NESTED SYSTEMS SURROUNDINGS ENVIRONMENT. DRAFT

DEPENDENCIES AND CONTINGENCIES ; DISJUNCTION, NON-UNIFORM, UNION, SET, ETC.. DRAFT

CONSTRAINTS, CONFLICT OF INTEREST, EXTERNAL CONFLICT, INFINTESIMAL, ZERO, UNDEFINED, NOT REAL, IMAGINARY, INFINITE, ETC.. DRAFT

THE MEANING OF INFINITE. DRAFT

DRAFT

EXAMPLE PIANO KEY ; PIANO KEY SERIES ; PIANO KEY SEQUENCE ; PIANO KEY ARRANGEMENT ; PIANO KEY MUSIC ; ETC.. DRAFT

DRAFT

IMPORTANCE OF LIE ALGEBRA. DRAFT

BEYOND INTEGRITY AND THE TRUTH. DRAFT

THE ATMOSPHERE OF UNCERTAINTY. DRAFT

A NEVER STAR. STORY OF A STAR SEEN, UNSEEN, ETC.. THE LIMITATION OF A NOTE, MEMORY AND TIME. DRAFT.

DRAFT

LIE ALGEBRA. DRAFT 

CHINI DRAFT.

CHINEE DRAFT.

CHAINEE BEGINNINGS. DRAFT (EXPELLED FROM CHIN FOR CHIN) (DRAFT)

DRAFT

THE STORY OF THE ILLYO.

DRAFT

THE STORY OF THE DARYO.

DRAFT

DARYO THE NESTING DOLL WITH NO PARENTS, NO RAISING PARENTS, NO BIOLOGICAL PARENTS KNOWN, ETC.. DRAFT

DRAFT

VERY LONG YOUTH. DRAFT

DRAFT

PUFF THE GHOST. 

DRAFT

MAGIC MAN

DRAFT

MAGIC MIRROR

DRAFT

ANCESTOR OF THE CHINEY PEOPLE. DRAFT

UNKNOWN, UNCERTAIN, UNKNOWN UNKNOWN, ETC.. DRAFT

UNIVERSE, ETC.. DRAFT

ILLYO, DACTA DIOBEATLES, MONGO, WHITE HORSE BLACK MAIN AND TAIL, BRONTOSAURUS, PERSIAN CAT, WATTLE BATTEN, FURMUR, HOOSIER, ALBINO, ANOREXIC, TREE, AIR, MOUNTAIN, HORSE, PLANT, STAR, MIRROR, ETC.. DRAFT

ZERO, ETC.. DRAFT

DRAFT