Humanity has built formal logic with the ineffective elements of two operations. Why? Is this the largest logic algorithm? Or is there a broader algorithm?
Frankly, an amazing question. It is well known that formalized systems exist not only in the "classical" logic of Aristotle, but also in various variants of multi-valued logics: fuzzy, probabilistic, modal, etc., up to dialectical and neutrosophic. Could you elaborate on your question?
Hasan Keleş Your question is one thing. But your comment under it seems to be on a completely different track. What is the connection between them supposed to be?
Here is a link relevant to the question itself:
https://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publications/benchbks/judicial_officers/argumentation_in_legal_reasoning.html
Dear Prof. Dr. Karl Pfeifer,
Proposition or statement: A proposition or statement is an assertion or claim which is either true or false and lie or imagine, and which can be either asserted or denied. Propositions differ in these respects from questions, exclamations, and commands.
The ambiguous false or virtual states of propositions are not included in the evaluation at all. This creates an imbalance in logic.
http://japm.or.kr/out/04032046193854589.pdf
Yours sincerely,
Hasan KELEŞ
Dear Prof. Dr. Alexey Orlovsky,
I thank you for your contribution to the problem in terms of content. I wanted to draw attention to the source of social problems. People can be managed with writings, machines with software. The importance of logic or logical evaluation is quite remarkable.
Yours sincerely,
Hasan KELEŞ
Journal of Applied and Pure Mathematics
[p. 187] Spin Half-adder in B3, by Hasan KELEŞ
Dear doctor
Go To
Formal and Informal in Legal Logic
- September 2010
- DOI: 10.1007/978-90-481-9588-6_4
- Jan Wolenski
"Abstract
The label “legal logic” is ambiguous. It can be used as referring either to applications of standard formal logic (including, for example, modal or deontic logic) or to various patterns of arguments used by lawyers. This ambiguity corresponds to the double meaning of “logic”, understood narrowly or largely. In the first sense, logic is a collection of logical calculi together with metalogical studies on them; it is logic sensu stricto (formal logic). Logic sensu largo comprises semantics, formal logic and the general methodology of science. However, lawyers are inclined to think that law has or requires a specific logic which is not reducible to logic even in its broad understanding. In particular, lawyers think that typical legal arguments, like a maiori ad minus or a minor ad maius are examples of specific legal logical principles. This view seems mistaken, because formal logic is universal and thereby applicable in every specific domain, This does not exclude that some logical patterns, for example, derived from deontic logic are more interested for lawyers than for representatives of other professions. An interesting problem concerning the relation of logic and law consists in using by lawyers typical metalogical concepts (proof, consistency, completeness etc.) for description of properties of legal systems or their parts. One can show that the use of these categories plays a serious rhetorical role in legal discourse."
Abstract
The label “legal logic” is ambiguous. It can be used as referring either to applications of standard formal logic (including, for example, modal or deontic logic) or to various patterns of arguments used by lawyers. This ambiguity corresponds to the double meaning of “logic”, understood narrowly or largely. In the first sense, logic is a collection of logical calculi together with metalogical studies on them; it is logic sensu stricto (formal logic). Logic sensu largo comprises semantics, formal logic and the general methodology of science. However, lawyers are inclined to think that law has or requires a specific logic which is not reducible to logic even in its broad understanding. In particular, lawyers think that typical legal arguments, like a maiori ad minus or a minor ad maius are examples of specific legal logical principles. This view seems mistaken, because formal logic is universal and thereby applicable in every specific domain, This does not exclude that some logical patterns, for example, derived from deontic logic are more interested for lawyers than for representatives of other professions. An interesting problem concerning the relation of logic and law consists in using by lawyers typical metalogical concepts (proof, consistency, completeness etc.) for description of properties of legal systems or their parts. One can show that the use of these categories plays a serious rhetorical role in legal discourse."
Both in legal language and in normal life, a statement that is false or wrong for one cannot be true for another. This is a contradiction. Neither law nor life can be built on false statements. This study was conducted to answer these very questions. A logic in which falsehood is obtained from falsehood and truth is obtained.
Water means the same thing for all living things. All living things expect the same from soil. All living things expect the same from a universal official logic. A false statement is a lie for everyone. Likewise, a true statement is indisputable for all people. A relative formal logic is unacceptable for living beings.