propositional thinking?
357634
A view to a compromise.
40843
What a pity that you cannot answer your own question! I'm getting curious...\n\nIt seems to be a question in pure logics rather than arithmetics: as you don't know me you cannot give me any apple (first proposition: False) \nBut canaries don't have teeth (second proposition: false)\n\nSo the implication is true... \n\nOtherwise, being the postulate contradictory, any proposition can be logically proven: including "lower than 3 and higher than 5"\n\nI'm giving numbers?
341302
Work on logic games; that can help with general reasoning. \n\nWhat are you trying to analyze? Work situations? Shipping? Personnel? There's a lot of books and resources, some probably available at your library, that give strategy for various aspects of business. Sorry I can't be more precise, but your question is very broad.
259506
Well, I'm not sure about a workshop. However, there is a great book called Being Logical: A guide to good thinking by D.Q. McInerny. It's only a 129 pages, but they are power packed.\n\n Here is a review:\n"Highly readable...D.Q. McInerny offers an introduction to symbolic logic in plain English, so you can finally be clear on what is deductive reasoning and what is inductive. And you'll see how deductive arguments are constructed."\n- Detroit Free Press
877843
do you *really* think you're going to get help in set theory from Yahoo Answers?\n\ntry the Wikipedia Reference Desk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk ).
925939
Do you mean implication? Ie, in general, "If x, then y" is an implication.
869039
Thoughts become things
1032373
C. Questions with subjective answers.
1032816
I think, therefore I am.  Right?  \n\nIf I think about what color socks I'm going to wear, and I put on the color I think about, then my though of wearing red socks has just become a reality.  \nNothing happens unless we think about something and act on those thoughts, so yes, thoughts do create reality.
66274
Out of your suggestions you violate some rules of estimation. The closest the mind can get to is 456,000 and if to convert it to an estimate you might wanna think of 460,000.
471450
weezy is on the right track, that glow1989 is on the right track.  For everyone who thinks that writing 1+1=2 is so obvious that it constitutes a self-contained proof of itself(!)... if you undertake a serious study of mathematical proof, you might find that 357 pages is a good length for a quick introduction to the ideas that are involved in considering questions in this area.  Of course, I am talking about actually UNDERSTANDING something - very different to simply passing an exam, regardless of the 'level' of maths you are enrolled in.\n\nYes, as you mentioned, this is a hard question.  'Proving' that 1+1=2 is not as simple as it sounds, because of the inherent question of what we mean by 'prove'.  You might have noticed that some proofs you have used depend on other proofs, which in turn depend on other proofs, ... which ultimately rest on a handful of axioms.  It is the nature of operations that are allowed by any axiomatic system, that determine the characteristics of mathematical problems that can be said to be SOLVABLE.  It is no small task to understand the axioms that underlie our systems of mathematics.  For example, maths students learn: that division by zero is undefined; that any object raised to a null power is equal to unity; some differences between rational and irrational numbers; what we mean when we consider objects to exist in 'sets'; and so on.  Those who consider themselves to be excellent students are usually able to list these rules in rapid-fire style.  But if we are asked to 'prove' why those rules are the way they are, the questions start to seem fuzzy, and you typically run out of convenient formulas to rely on.  You could easily write 357 pages just to explain what you actually MEAN by the numbers 1 or 2, without worrying about the definition of the addition operation!  As usual, people might do better to stop and consider what the question is asking before booting in a smug answer.\n\nLook into Hilbert's Problem (David Hilbert - German mathematician), which was a more workable and compact form of a proposal by Russell and Whitehead to formalise mathematics on a general basis, according to well-established axioms and procedures.\n\nOther notable mathematicians to work in this area were Alan Turing, Alonzo Church (look for Church's Lambda Calculus), Emil Post, and the brilliant Kurt Gödel.  In more recent decades, look for Gandy (1988) and of course many others.\n\nLol, molawby is spot-on.  I wish he'd posted b4 me... would've saved me a bit of typing.  If all you need to do is learn to sing the right song, to pass your exams and get the job that stipulates that you need to have completed such-and-such a course, then you don't have to worry about any of this.  Of course, that doesn't mean you have to dismiss it either.  But if you are chasing a deeper understanding, it probably does take the 20 yrs, and you won't necessarily get paid for it, heheheh.\n\nFor bedside reading, I suggest Roger Penrose etc...
1018412
do you really want someone else to think for you?\nhmmm...well then...\nhere it goes...\n1. look in your math book...there are examples of how to do this problem...\n2. same answer as above!!!\n#3... same...\n\n#4!!!! remember Einstein solved "un-solve able" problems!!!
997490
many, many discrete logic states...not just 0 or 1
478832
nope, free will, just see everyday examples\n\n\n\n...you mean will instead of why?.......
804983
did you even try to look this up?\n\ngot to www.yahoo.com and type\n"reflexive property"\n\nWhoa!!
613893
Some one called Axioma
813808
I can't say it has ever crossed my mind...\n\nHow could you have no hypothetical situations?\n\nThat would mean we lost the ability to wonder about the "what if" scenarios.       We would have lost the ability to think.