I have heard people use ontology several times in my life but always forget what it means after looking it up

Jeez Mr. JP is also a talented illustrator! lawyers are multi/super talented.

I really like how thorough the explanation can be sometimes. very empathetic.->> road to right guidance

When it comes to embedded conditionals is there a table explaining variations of

A → (B → C) becomes A and B → C?

How is "B or C" translating to "/B → C?" (and vice versa).

I am trying to understand how to "pull the inside sufficient condition out and make it a sufficient conjunct in the outside conditional" .

Is there a section / lesson online explaining how this works? and all the various permutations and combinations of "if then" conditionals and how they translate to AND (&) OR (or) relationships?

For example I know that if I negate (A&B) I get :

(A&B) = /A or /B

So my question is what are the rules for opening up the brackets of a conditional as in A → (B → C) ?

Let me try it here:

Given

(A-> B)= (/A or B) (1)

(A-> B)= /(A & /B) (2)

How would you bring B in A → (B → C) out of the brackets?

A-> (/B or C) (from 1)

converting the remaining conditional

/A or (/B or C) (from 1)

opening up the brackets

/A or /B or C

bracketing /A or /B:

(/A or /B) or C

converting the right most or into a conditional

/(/A or /B) -> C

distributing the outermost not

(A & B ) -> C

Ok so I was able to derive that after all that effort but its not obvious, is it?

I see the structure as follows: (1) photographs of buckled ice -supports-> (2) warm sea (intermediate conclusion/premise) -supports-> (3) presence of life (intermediate conclusion/premise) -supports-> (4) there may be life on Europa (final conclusion).

There is a chain of premise/subsidiary conclusions leading to the final conclusion.

Yes both 2 & 3 support 4 as a chain not independently (as you illustrated).

However this would mean both D & E are correct.

The explanation states that 3 is a separate claim but then it contradicts itself by explaining that 3 without 2 would not support the conclusion as clearly.

As most of the readers the conclusions and premises are clear but the questions & answers do not clearly identify the sub conclusions in the answers (or premises that also act as sub conclusions). Any chance that could be identified. Perhaps #5 is the only question with a clear sub conclusion etc.

All the kind people who are responding & liking. I have sent you a message directly. Feel free to read it & respond. I have also included my cell phone number if you want to reach out to me. My email is mister.arthur.white@gmail.com (if you want to email me directly). If I don't respond within 24 hours do mention it here or send me a DM here on 7sage. I am new here so unsure if it is wise to leave my phone on the message boards so just sending it directly to people.

Just wanted to write to express my gratitude that you kind folks offer so much to us not so affluent folk.

Very kind of you.

Also my apologies if I objected to any style of delivery in the past (I have edited my comments.). If I have ever been as impolite as the esteemed philosopher I would like to apologize & say that it usually emanates from trauma in our lives & years of misfortunes (which individually may not be much but in the absence of love, abundance & support can be as painful and sensitive as the pain & sensitivity of a victim of water drop torture).

Everyone is doing a great job & I certainly hope I am not as unkind as the gentleman philosopher depicted in this passage. If any are so insulting & verbally abusive then they need hugs, love, right guidance, a good environment, a holy spirit & forgiveness.

Also I texted a friend to ask if I ever suffer from body odors & he verified that I do not (since I shower twice a day & use other sanitary measures along with my copious use of perfumes & air fresheners), by God's grace (which was a relief). If anyone does feel that way about me then kindly do inform me (ever so gently preferably) so I may improve myself.

Lastly I hope all peoples who suffer from mouth breathing & are not as smart are healed. Mouth breathing & odors & even mental in-acuity are a medical condition & may be healed/ loved/ treated accordingly I suppose. Most people who breathe from their mouths or are odoriferous are usually suffering from poverty or oppression of some kind or the other (neglect & lack of love & financial worries).-Hope all are delivered & are smart & sweet smelling & beautiful & rightly guided so we may better love one another.

p.s. also I love the environment & I hope we never use our faculties & abilities to advance incorrectness. However if any are doing so they are likely victims of their misguidance (since being misguided and wrongs are inherently a punishment for the misguided & wrong-doer).

Appreciate your explaining this. I have a minor concern where you say"So when we’re told “most” attended every class, that doesn’t exclude the possibility that all of them attended every class." (approx 6th/8th para)

But Most is not all. Most is 51%-99% but it is not 100%.Is there a way of attaching a jpeg or gif because I wished to illustrate a venn diagram. The response allows for youtube clips but no gifs?

I have to say your writing is becoming increasingly hilarious. I have not laughed so much since the last time I was watching a sitcom.

I love being honest with myself however, I already know & have thought a bit about correlation, causation, covariance etc. It is always nice to see an informal explanation or another deeper perspective. Please don't give up on us and each other even if we are not very self aware.

Would someone correct my conditional logic steps that may lead to the condition that forms the answer:

P1: "some gardening books published by Garden Path recommend tilling the soil and adding compost before starting a new garden on a site"

(domain) gardening books:

published by GPP <-s-> tilling AND compost (1)

P2: "they (those same books) do not explain the difference between hot and cold composting."

published by GPP <-s-> / diff H&C composting (2)

P3: "any gardening book that recommends adding compost is flawed if it does not explain at least the basics of composting"

(domain) gardening books :

/ basics composting -> flawed (3)

Conclusion: "some books published by Garden Path are flawed."

published by GPP <-s-> flawed (4)

(4) is the same as :

flawed <-s-> published by GPP (5)

combining (5) and (2)

flawed <-s-> published by GPP <-s-> / diff H&C composting (6)

based off of (6)

flawed <-s-> / diff H&C composting (7) [NOTE: I realize we cannot do that due to the <s> relationship not being transitive, but how else to proceed?]

Combine (7) and (3)

/ basics composting ->/ diff H&C composting

contrapositive:

diff H&C composting -> basics composting

Based on the above D should be the answer perhaps?

Though certainly there is a flaw in there somewhere particularly with the <s> relationships inference etc.

Presently may not visualize in mind's eye, the stimulus pattern. Seeming inability to follow along if I don't sketch / write out stimulus. Love shallow dip method. Your empathetic teaching is refreshing. If 3 mins is too long what is the max one may spend on such questions?

So looking it from point of view of sets and subsets we notice that

Original: D → F

implies that Dogs is a subset of Friendly.

Whereas negated...

Negated: /(D → F)

The Dogs set is intersecting with the Friendly set? and some dogs are outside the Friendly set intersection.

https://miro.com/app/board/uXjVJL9zNgA=/?share_link_id=597707785172

Would that be correct? If so how can we get more out of thinking in sets?

[...]

I don't know how to include my explanation but it has to do with using sets and images which are not included.

https://miro.com/app/board/uXjVJMQNNdo=/?share_link_id=457400385324

Rule: If a person knowingly enters another's home without permission, then that person has committed trespass.

Application: Jimin wanted to surprise his new neighbor with a housewarming gift. He brought the gift, a kettle, to her house and left it on the kitchen counter. Even though Jimin had no nefarious motives and only wanted to welcome her to the community, he has committed trespass.

The author then states that : "As you can see, the "application" is incomplete. It's an argument but it's missing some facts or premises. We don't know if Jimin had permission from his neighbor or not. So the argument does not contain premises that “trigger” the sufficient conditions of the rule. It's our task to find the missing facts or premises which will "complete the application."

The passage then goes onto say that the correct answer might be:

"Knowing how intensely private his neighbor was, Jimin waited until she went to work to sneak into her house through the unlocked kitchen window."

However the above "correct" answer does not say clearly and explicitly if Jimin had permission or not. It might be that Jimin had permission to enter the neighbor's house whenever Jimin wanted but after having this permission Jimin waited until she left to sneak into the house. Of course "being intensely private" implies that the neighbor may not have given Jimin permission but that is an assumption and not necessarily true, is it? It is possible that the neighbor was intensely private and still held a special place in their heart for Jimin who the neighbor had given permission to enter (at will)?

It could be that the neighbor's privacy emerged from a desire to avoid attention and knowing the neighbor's low-key attitudes Jimin wanted to give them a gift in a subtle manner?