#logicalreasoning

[firmflexing]

Smack about Empathy.

Smack is a mini-podcast in which I try to tackle topics with common sense and logical reasoning, without bad intentions or ulterior motives. If a take happens to align with any political, religious or other kind of ideology, that is purely coincidental. It will inevitably upset someone, but please hear me out and remain civil.

[thedeductionpage]

WHAT PRACTICE MAKES

The good thing about being in robot mode is you get to channel all that into things like old hobbies. Let’s be honest, I’m probably not gonna post in a long time, after this.

So, everyone knows the saying: “practice makes perfect”, and if you hadn’t heard of it, there you go. When it comes to deduction and most things, practice is essential. What you practice is nearly irrelevant. When you practice, getting warmer— consistency is key. However, I wanna talk about how you practice.

If you’ve circulated the deduction community, you’ll see all these pioneer deductionists who have years and years, maybe even decades of experience. Are all of them good? Not really. A person doing it for 6 months could get better results than them, but why? Why, after all these years are some deductionists still inadequate after so much experience?

The truth is, practice does not exactly make perfect, it makes normal.

These deductionists are practicing incorrectly. They go on reddit or facebook and deduce people, maybe go out in real life and get their material there and simply assume they’re right. They have no confirmation. Now, this may seem a little ironic, but I don’t believe in people getting involved in your process. You only need yourself, and whoever your deducing (or the extension of them, like their belongings). Unfortunately, this means you have to socialize and do research.

Don’t just assume you’re right.

Whenever you’re deducing someone, make sure you have them there, available to confirm and deny.

Don’t just ask what you got right and wrong. Try to explore why it is you were wrong, what set them apart from the baseline.

When you get a lucky, improbable deduction, still ask which factors contributed to this phenomenon. Ask, ask, ask.

How do you ask? Just be as mysterious and ominous, then direct as possible. That’s the 1-2-step. Be enticing and mysterious, then tell the truth. I go on whisper or reddit. I make a post that goes: “I bet you I could tell you who you are by seeing a picture of you or anything you own. NO NUDES OR FOOT PICS.”

Just being honest about that last part. People get confused.

So, what’s the moral of the story? Practice makes normal, perfect practice makes progress. I am coining that and you all have to monetarily compensate me whenever you use that, thanks. This is a pretty short post, but if you have any questions, feel free to ask them. I’ve got nothing going on in my life and I may just throw myself into deduction, who knows? This may be my renaissance, or something.

TDP

[connieaaa]

Adjacent to "were you cringe or were you 11?"

I apologize on behalf of 16-year-old me to the person from the college group at church. He opened up about depression and suicidal ideation, and I helpfully tried to share my personal brain hack - if you are worthless, you aren't actually worth the effort it takes to kill yourself.

I didn't know what life could be like yet. Also I am quite proud of 9-year-old us for coming up with logic bomb.

I also have to say that neutral self-talk has been life changing for me.

I love myself ❌

I hate myself❌

I appreciate who I have become✔️

[yoursharkybitch]

On a scale from 1 to 10 if you were on a desert island which board game would you bring

we eat whoever loses at chutes and ladders

[iqmatrix]

NEW IQ MATRIX: Realistic Thinking [#0507]

The Realistic Thinking IQ Matrix explores the fundamental principles and dynamics that build the groundwork for thinking realistically, objectively, and logically about everyday problems and circumstances. To think realistically, you must become aware of the world around you. Only in this way will you gain an accurate view of the world and your place in it. With that awareness, you will be better able to make more informed decisions based on the available information.

This map walks you through how to develop realistic thinking when facing various issues, problems, or circumstances that require an objective and logical approach. Developing the ability to think realistically will help you set achievable goals and take responsibility for your actions and the consequences that come with them.

You can read a more detailed outline of this map at https://store.iqmatrix.com/shop/realistic-thinking

[footprints-and-tea-stains]

Argumentation 2/7: Operations

This is the point where posts get longer. I've done my best to simplify and shorten where I can without leaving out unnecessary information. To make navigation easier I'll be using some key formatting tools. Definitions are boldened, examples are numbered and indented, and sections have headers.

Finding Simple Sentences

Sentential logic's foundation is rooted in taking large blocks of information (commonly text), and converting it into something we call simple sentences. What are simple sentences? They are statements without any logical connectives. Unfortunately this definition creates a sort of paradox because to understand simple sentences you need to know what logical connectives are, but in order to use logical connectives you need to know what simple sentences are. So the goal of the first part of this post will be to provide enough examples of both on their own so that we can begin using them together in the latter parts.

Logical connectives come in one of the following forms:

And

Or

If ..., Then...

Not

Statements with one of the above logical connectives in it are not simple sentences. That sentence can actually be broken down further until we get to the simple sentence. Another key feature of simple sentences is that it must either be true or false. You can't have partially true statements in this logical environment. This is an area where errors in logic could form. If something is subjective, within the context of logic, you need to qualify it in some way as to determine whether it is true or false. For example, if you want to prove that someone is happy, you may need to create a more precise definition of what happiness looks like for them given the context.

Example 1; "If the pizza has pepperoni on it, then the pizza is good". Sounds like a solid argument. How many simple sentences are there? The answer is two. Notice the logical connectives we mentioned earlier, "if" and "then". Removing those connectives we're left with two simple sentences. 1. The pizza has pepperoni on it. 2. The pizza is good.

Example 2; "The pepperoni is crispy or the pizza is bad". Clearly an objective statement. How many this time? Two again. The logical connector "or" connects two statements. 1. The pepperoni is crispy. 2. The pizza is bad.

Example 3; "The cheese is not gooey". How many? The answer is one but don't be fooled, there is still a logical connective that needs to be removed. So the simple sentence looks like this: 1. The cheese is gooey.

Example 4; "If Clare, Kat, and Rachel eat pizza, then it is Friday". How many simple sentences and what are they? If you guessed four you would be correct. Because of the list of subjects the "if" is applied to each person. 1. Clare eats pizza. 2. Kat eats pizza. 3. Rachel eats pizza. 4. It is Friday.

Representing Simple Sentences

So we understand the differences in simple sentences and logical connectives. We'll go deeper into each of the connectors, but first we need a better way to represent our statements. Why should we spend time learning how to shorten out simple sentences? Lets take a look at a few examples and it should become apparent.

Example 5; If the moon is full, then houses transform into warehouses. 1. The moon is full. 2. Houses transform into warehouses.

Example 6; If the light is on, then I am not alone in my home. 1. The light is on. 2. I am not alone in my home.

Example 7; If the McRib is back, then traffic is worse than the previous month. 1. The McRib is back. 2. Traffic is worse than the previous month.

Each of these arguments follow the same structure. They are logically identical arguments in every way other than the subjects. Then why should we consider them individually when we could look at them all at once? We shouldn't. It's more efficient to represent them all with the same notation. We do the same thing in algebra by substituting logically identical equations with variables. If something applies to one equation, it applies to the others.

In the case of logic, we use letters such as P, Q, and R or F, G, and H. There's lots of letters and we could have many, many simple sentences we need to represent. So for example;

Instead of

Example 8; If guitars are red, then they sound better. 1. Guitars are red. 2. They sound better.

We use

Example 8; If R then S 1. R: Guitars are red. 2. S: They sound better.

The change may seem small but when we begin doing truth tables with many simple sentences this will save a lot of time that didn't need to be wasted.

___

Representing Logical Operators Part I

Negation ~

Negation is found with "NOT" To represent the negation of a premise we use the ~ (Tilda). Why represent the negation of a premise with a logical operator instead of a new variable? Short answer, it saves a lot of time and space when you have a large number of premises. Also it may help to think of representing logic in terms of algebra.

Example 9; Africa is not a country. 1. A: Africa is a country. 2. ~A

Disjunction v

Disjunction is found with "OR". Say we have two simple sentences, H: "I am hungry." and T: "I am thirsty." and we add a v (wedge) between them, we get an Inclusive Or statement. I am hungry or I am thirsty or I am both hungry and thirsty. This is in contrast to an Exclusive Or statement wherein both parts cannot be true at the same time. Be on the lookout for when an or statement is inclusive or exclusive.

Inclusive OR

Example 10; I am hungry or I am thirsty. 1. H: I am hungry. 2. T: I am thirsty. 3. HvT

Exclusive OR

Example 11; I am asleep or I am awake. 1. S: I am asleep. 2. W: I am awake. 3. SvW

Compound Sentences

Quick pause from demonstrating how to represent logical connectives. We're going to take the last two operations (negation and disjunction) to talk about compound sentences. Compound sentences are sentences featuring multiple logical operators.

Example 12; I will eat pizza or I will not brush my teeth. 1. P v ~T

Logical operators can manipulate compound sentences in the same way they can manipulate simple sentences. One operator can only link two things together. The next example will illustrate this.

Example 13; They will compete in rugby, tennis, or golf. 1. (RvT)vG 2. Rv(TvG) 3. BUT NOT RvTvG

Its also crucial to pay attention to the meaning of a sentence.

Example 14; It is not the case that I running or I am female. Is this: ~RvF [Female/not running/female who is not running] Or is it: ~(RvF) [I am not female and I am not running] Technically the statement could mean either of these and they do not mean the same thing. (Converting these from logical notation back to English will be expanded upon when we cover DeMorgan's Law in the Rules of Replacement post.)

You need to be careful with how you write down sentences so you can avoid situations like in Example 14. There is only one way to interpret a logical statement in English. But there could be many ways to interpret English statements into logic.

Representing Logical Operators Part II

Conjunction ^

The AND operator connects two simple sentences such that they are both simultaneously true. We notate the and operator with the ^ (carrot).

Example 15; He is tall and has brown hair. 1. T: He is tall. 2. H: He has brown hair. 3. T^H

Its important to note that there are occasions where a conjunction will exist without an and; such as:

Example 16; I am happy you are learning logic but I am upset I have very little free time to write my posts. 1. L: I am happy you are learning logic. 2. F: I am upset I have very little free time to write my posts. 3. L^F The "but" divides the statement and acts as a logical connective, conjoining the simple sentences. In this case, but is an and. Often in real speech but is just another way to say and. This also applies for "as well as" and "in addition to"

Conditional Statements

Conditional statements take two simple sentences and connect them in an "if/then" situation. We show this with an => (arrow). Conditionals come in the following forms: If-Then, Only If, Required, Necessary, and Sufficient.

Example 17; If you are President of the United States, you are both Older then 35 and an American Citizen. 1. P=> (O^C) If President, then older and citizen.

Example 18; You can eat Desert only if you have eaten your Vegetables. (it may help to rewrite the statement in a simpler form. Such as "If you can eat your desert, you have eaten your vegetables.") 1. D=>V If D then V

Example 19; Submitting your Paper is required to having your paper Graded. 1. G=>P If G then P. If having a graded paper is true, then you must have submitted the paper.

Example 20; To not Lose track of logic, it is necessary to Practice each step multiple times. 1. ~L=>P If one does not lose track of logic, then one practices each step.

Example 21; Wearing Sunscreen is sufficient to not getting Burnt. S=>~B If one wears sunscreen, then they will not get burnt.

Important Notes:

If the antecedent is false, the conditional statement is (vacuously) true. We'll cover vacuously true in more detail when we go over truth tables.

P=>Q is the same as ~PvQ. This may seem counter intuitive but we'll see why this works when we cover replacement rules.

Biconditional

The biconditional operator is the logical equivalent to the equal sign. This means that whatever is on one side must be identical to what is on the other side regardless of superficial differences. We can locate a biconditional statement with "if and only if" and we notate them with the <=> (two way arrow).

Example 22; I am in a long line at Taco Bell if and only if it is after 11:00pm. 1. L: I am in a long line at Taco Bell. 2. A: It is after 11:00pm. We can think of the above as the following two conditional statements put together 3. L=>A; If I am in a long line at Taco Bell, it is after 11:00pm. 4. A=>L; If it is after 11:00pm, I am in a long line at Taco Bell.

You may, if you were very observant, realize the biconditional is just two conditional statements put together. In fact, the biconditional is redundant. The following two statements are identical:

L<=>A

(L=>A)^(A=>L)

So we don't actually need a unique operator for biconditional, right? Though it is redundant and can be avoided by rewriting the statement, we're still going to be using biconditionals. On one hand, it's all over logic and you need know how to communicate with others who use logic. On the other hand the biconditional is very intuitive. How could be participate in logic without an equality identity? Its an efficient redundancy.

----------------------------

In the next post we'll be going over truth tables. We'll take everything we learned here and apply it to a structural matrix that allows us to simplify the process of applying operators to multiple premises simultaneously. If you have any questions please feel free to send me an ask and I'll put all the asks together into one response post. If I don't reply to your particular question that likely means I'm going to cover it in an upcoming post.

-CM

[snowandkai]

*ignores all 5 dog beds and sleeps on metal rod instead*

[cl4ssical-s0rrow]

Little bit of light reading, hm?

[influenczarscrew]

[mraberdeenwashington]

Did you hear about the new drinking game?

It's called "Chug a Soda" - you drink a 12-oz can of soda with 150 calories of high fructose corn syrup, just like the 150 calories of alcohol in a beer.

The loser is your liver!

- A 12-oz can of regular soda and a 12-oz beer both contain about 150 calories

- The soda calories come from high fructose corn syrup, while the beer has alcohol

- Fructose from corn syrup is metabolized similarly to alcohol in the liver, potentially leading to fatty liver disease, insulin resistance and other health issues

- The U.S. government subsidizes corn production, making high fructose corn syrup very cheap and prevalent in processed foods

So while alcohol has well-known acute effects, fructose from subsidized corn syrup may be just as harmful to the liver in the long run, with the added danger of being in many foods we consume daily. The joke plays on this irony in a tongue-in-cheek way. Of course, moderation is key for both sugar and alcohol for optimal health.

Citations:

[1] Is drinking beer brewed with corn syrup bad for you? - The San Diego ... https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/lifestyle/food-and-cooking/sns-dailymeal-1973973-drink-corn-syrup-brew-beer-bad-20190204-story.html

[2] [PDF] evaluation of the effects of alcohol and high-fructose corn syrup on ... https://www.bingol.edu.tr/documents/2021%20fruktoz.pdf

[3] Sweet coolers a gateway to increased alcohol consumption - ScienceDaily https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/07/200722142746.htm

[4] Fructose: It's “Alcohol Without the Buzz” - PMC - NCBI https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3649103/

[5] Fructose: it's "alcohol without the buzz" - PubMed https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23493539/

[6] The Amazing Similarities Between this Toxic Sugar and Alcohol https://arphysmed.com/2017/10/the-amazing-similarities-between-this-toxic-sugar-and-alcohol/

[7] Author Michael Pollan: 'The Omnivore's Dilemma' - NPR https://www.npr.org/transcripts/5342514

[8] High Fructose Corn Syrup: As Bad As Alcohol, But Without The Buzz https://markhamnaturopaths.com/2018/08/13/high-fructose-corn-syrup-as-bad-as-alcohol-but-without-the-buzz/

[9] We Are What We Eat - Michael Pollan https://michaelpollan.com/interviews/we-are-what-we-eat/

[10] The Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan - Reading Guide https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/292953/the-omnivores-dilemma-by-michael-pollan/9780143038580/readers-guide/

[11] [DOC] The Omnivore's Dilemma, Section 1 Questions - EL Education Curriculum | https://curriculum.eleducation.org/sites/default/files/curriculum/lessons/4240/g8m2u1l2modulelessons-supportingmaterials-0320.doc

[12] The Evils of Corn Syrup: How Food Writers Got It Wrong - The Atlantic https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2010/09/the-evils-of-corn-syrup-how-food-writers-got-it-wrong/63281/

[13] HFCS (high fructose corn syrup) to be renamed! | Page 2 - Talk Tennis https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php

[14] What does the right have against corn syrup : r/terriblefacebookmemes https://www.reddit.com/r/terriblefacebookmemes/comments/16yowfw/what_does_the_right_have_against_corn_syrup/

[15] Fructose: It's “Alcohol Without the Buzz” - ScienceDirect.com https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2161831322011073

[16] Right, if corn were not subsidized, corn syrup would probably not be ... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6038531

[vkrproducts]

Decision making skill development course for kids. A mandate course every kids need to take infront of their parents!

Explain the situations given in this below course and ask your kids what decision will they take. By doing this you can assess their current decision making skill. Teach them what would be the perfect decision morally and ethically. So that if they have to face a dilemma situation, they can decide confidently. Pre training kids to face tough situations independently is important! So that they won't get into troubles. As we all know PREVENTION IS BETTER THAN CURE, this course makes sures that. Samples are given in the images. Have a look on it!

Price - $3.60/- only including taxes

Course link: 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻

Samples: 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻

[firmflexing]

Smack about Harm.

Smack is a mini-podcast in which I try to tackle topics with common sense and logical reasoning, without bad intentions or ulterior motives. If a take happens to align with any political, religious or other kind of ideology, that is purely coincidental. It will inevitably upset someone, but please hear me out and remain civil.

[thedeductionpage]

How To Get Accurate But Interesting Deductions

Note: I’m working on…working on a little project on deduction, I think it’ll be pretty interesting, once finished. It’s a pretty laborious one that requires the collection of information and a lot more bullshit, so…you probably won’t be seeing that, anytime soon. 

Okay, so back to the topic: How to get accurate but interesting deductions. This is very broad. Honestly, I chose this title because I knew that the kind of people who’d be attracted to it would probably be the ones who need to hear it. Some phrases these people may use while reasoning: 

“Because they’re an idiot” 

“Because they want to impress potential romantic partners” 

“Because they’re slow” 

“Because they’re shallow” 

“They’re mentally unwell *insert mental illness here*” 

If you find yourself saying these things, then you probably need to read this post. Humanization: it’s important. I’m not here to be the morality police, or whatever— it’s just a fact.

Do you want to stop getting the same, surface level, inaccurate, blanket statement deductions? Then deduce people, not a version of your projections. If you haven’t guessed, I lean more towards the psychological aspect of deduction, and I’ve gathered that humanizing the people you deduce will help you psychologically profile them. 

The thing is, deductionists sometimes underestimate or dehumanize the people they’re deducing. Whether they do it to feel better about themselves, to force a more interesting story onto their person in order to come up with more exciting conclusions, or whatever they’ve got going on, doesn’t matter. The point is, they don’t think other people are allowed to be intelligent, or substantial and interesting. 

As a deductionist, one of the worst things you can do is judge the person you’re deducing. It’s not your job to judge them, you’re supposed to be analyzing them.

Your projections and clumsy methodology will only get in the way of that. When you deduce them, give your person a chance. Give them as much justice as you would want to be done onto you. If you want accurate deductions, then actually treat people like…people. Look for meaning in everything, then just discard the ones that don’t fit into the picture— it’s better than missing a piece. 

For example, a person I was deducing, along with others, had an old blanket with cartoons on it. Here’s how one person went wrong:

Cartoon blanket—> immature, possibly autistic/ADHD, not many friends. 

Can’t they just be young or sentimental? 

Either attached to childhood, looking for comfort, or financially unstable?

No books—> stupid, shallow, immature. 

E-books are a thing. His book could’ve been in his locker, at school, or hell, in his backpack in another room.

Shoes inside the room—> messy, no parents at home, slob. 

Could be, or it could be a matter of convenience. It could be a matter of routine. Or, he could have extracurriculars and has to be somewhere, after. He could have a social thing, which would go against the whole “no friends, loser” thing. 

When you deduce someone, treat it like a courtroom inside your head. There are two attorneys, the defense, and the prosecutor. One person looks for meaning, stretches and bends over backwards to redeem your person, while the other just goes buckwild and absolutely shits all over their little head.  It’s called balance.

People are allowed to be as smart and interesting, maybe even moreso, than you. People are allowed to be complex.

Anyways, I know I neglect this blog a lot. In my defense, you hit a certain plateau, when you’ve been deducing for a while. I don’t know when I’ll upload again, but…ya’ll eatin’ today. Bye. 

[mysocial8one]

Interested in the future of AI-driven code generation? Check out our latest article on CodeGemma, Google’s open-source model that’s revolutionizing coding with its logical and mathematical reasoning capabilities. Learn about its unique features and how it’s setting new benchmarks in code completion and generation.

[theprayasindia12]

Top CAT Coaching Classes in Dadar

Best CAT Coaching Centre in Dadar

When considering the preparation for the CAT exam, a cornerstone for entry into India's elite MBA programs, aspirants often seek the best coaching institutes that can provide them with a competitive edge. The Prayas India, situated in the heart of Dadar, stands out as a top choice for those aiming to ace the CAT exam. Known for its comprehensive curriculum and innovative teaching methodologies, The Prayas India has consistently been a beacon for CAT aspirants, guiding them towards achieving their MBA dreams.

The Prayas India's approach to CAT preparation is tailored and strategic, ensuring that every student receives personalized attention. The institute boasts a faculty of seasoned professionals and CAT veterans who bring a wealth of knowledge and firsthand experience of the exam. What sets The Prayas India apart is its focus on fostering a supportive learning environment that encourages interactive learning, doubt clearing sessions, and regular feedback. Moreover, the institute is well-equipped with the latest study materials, practice tests, and online resources to keep students abreast of the current exam pattern and trends.

For those aiming to embark on their CAT preparation journey in Dadar, The Prayas India is a beacon of excellence in coaching. With a proven track record of transforming aspirants into top percentile scorers, this institute remains dedicated to the success of each student. Interested candidates can reach out directly to The Prayas India at 07710013217 to kickstart their CAT preparation. With the right guidance, resources, and support, achieving your MBA dream is within reach at The Prayas India.

Google Address: The Prayas India CAT Coaching Classes in Dadar

[footprints-and-tea-stains]

Argumentation 1/7: What's The Point?

Imagine for a moment that you and a friend are at the movie theater to watch a new film. Excitedly you both purchase tickets and the attendant tells you the film you're going to see is down the hall to the left, in which there are two doors. You open the door to the first theater and ask someone inside which film this is for. It's the wrong one. You go into the second door this time without asking anyone if you're in the right place. Without thinking about it you've used logic.

We use argumentation everyday often without ever realizing. In deductionism we use a branch of formal logic called sentential logic (sometimes called prepositional logic). That means we take large blocks of text and convert them into sentences which we can then prove to be true or false. The argumentation this blog will be covering is the most basic form of sentential logic. If you've ever taken a Logic 101 course, you probably already know what I'm going to talk about over this series of posts. That being said, it would be smart to follow along and practice even if you have a grasp of the subject because it flows directly into the following series.

"Why!" I hear you yell. "Why should I learn argumentation and add unnecessary symbols and complexity to my deductions when I already use logic in my day to day life?" You need a strong foundation in logic otherwise the only thing you’ll be inferring is television plots. I’m serious, I don't care how good you think you are, professionals who use deductionism understand logic and use it as the basis of their work. Deductionist Ben Cardall uses logic as one of a few tools he shifts between during his work. In fiction, writers shield us from the unappealing work involved in problem solving, but believe me when I say your favorite detectives use formal logic (unless your investigator of choice is Mr. Magoo).

Deduction IS logic. If someone tries to convince you otherwise they’re being very silly. When Sherlock Holmes deduces the occupation of someone from a callus on their thumb or where they were three hours ago from the dampness of their umbrella, that's not just memorization and intuition (though those skills would certainly be at play). Holmes makes many, many logical proofs in his head quickly. This skill is the thing that I believe divides deductionists with room to grow from those who will stay at their respective skill plateau forever. This series is only one fifth of the beginner stage, but the abilities gained from it are worth half. This is the most important thing to get right.

Let’s take the example from the beginning of the post and break it down:

Film A is behind Door 1 or Door 2.

Film A is not behind Door 1.

Therefore, Film A is behind Door 2.

If each of our premises are true, then the conclusion MUST be true. Does that sound familiar? “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.” Oh right that’s Sherlock Holmes describing his “enlightened common sense”.

We have a lot to cover and in the next few weeks we'll be going into detail on how to take similar examples to the next level. We'll begin with logical operations and convert large chunks of text into simple sentences, then build on those premises with truth tables, reconstruct those simple sentences with replacement rules, develop new premises with rules of inferences, and finally solidify everything with proofs. I would suggest going through this series multiple times and practicing each of the parts. If you learn to do these things automatically you will make deductions from information you didn't know you had access to.

-CM