Dear Jiang,

Maybe it's because of people's boredom.

Best Wishes,

Mohammad M. Davar

Because Dialectical Logic, promoted by the Marxists and "real" Communists of the past, is tainted and dead. It never produced anything. There is only one Logic, which is known either as Formal Logic or as Aristotelian Logic and has its roots in old Greek predicates. The (many) "modern" attempts to reformulate logics (including dialectic, quantum, fuzzy, ...) eventually either die or get reduced to the formal logic. Personally, yes Mohammad Mahdi Davar, I am bored by all these futile attempts.

Interest of people depends on and changes with time and situations, it is irrelevant and pointless to judge the novelty and beauty of any field of scientific research by the acceptance and popularity of it among researchers, every research is unique and is a step forward in our understanding and self development, my advice to you is not to lose and keep up doing the mathematics you are involved in diligently and with passion, one day your mathematics will have story of its own to share with the world.

For me logic is simply the rules deduced from 1 (based initially on counting). This delivers a clear and unambiguous mathematics (and computing) which forms the foundation of science. I have always loved the subject because it is clear and certain due to this solid foundation. Our brains do not work on logic, they work on patterns, so what we describe as "logical" generally means it is feels correct to us, what I describe as rhetorical-logic. Modern mathematics is based on infinite-set theory which is rhetorical logic (its foundation is not 1 but ambiguity around unclear definitions of unbounded and infinite), so it is arguably dialectical logic. I don't know whether my term of rhetorical-logic and the term dialectical-logic are the same, which is ultimately the problem with anything based on an ambiguous foundation. 1 is an abstract concept I am confident is unambiguous (we will all have sufficiently similar understanding of the concept). Most other starting points are not so clear. If the foundation is uncertain then anything you build on it is uncertain. We see this everywhere in set-theory based mathematics. It is littered with inconsistency, paradoxes, and uncertainty due to the ambiguous foundation.

Ed Darnell, I am a romantic; I just can't see how anything can be based on "1". In my world, "2" is the required minimum :-) :-)

Thanks for all of above,

first, I am grateful to Dr. Stan Sykora, I want to say one of my key results is proofed out that the formal logic is a special case of dialectical logic, see my book titled "mathematical foundation for dialectical logic" in my profiles in this website;

then I am grateful also to Dr.Ed Darnell, for your rich comments in mathematics;

I am grateful to Dr. Mohammad Mahdi Davar's reply and Dr. Debopam Ghosh's encouragement to me.

Stan Sykora 1+1=2. 1 alone would be a little dull ... and mathematically inconsistent as what would 1+1 or 1-1 be? Romantically however 1+1>2. Maths is perhaps not the answer to everything! :)