What are the 4 fundamental laws of logic?
469247
A = A\n\nThis is one.
363975
Algebra, concepts of proof, logic, set theory (baby version), number theory, maybe some other stuff.
117183
In logic, one that is valid for a whole set at all times:\n\n"All dogs are mammals," which means all dogs, without exceptions, are mammal, at all times.\n\nYou have particular statements ("Some dogs are mammals" = "There exist some dogs that are mammals") and temporary statements ("All dogs are mammals today"). Logic only worries with universals and particulars though.\n\nThe sign for universality is the upside-down A. The sign for particularity is the mirror-image E.
770901
Deductive reasoning is like this:\n\n"If it is raining, then we will get wet." is the same as "If we get wet, then it's raining."\n\nIf something is true, then this other something is true or if something is not true , then this other something is not true.\n\nUsually in a If-then sentence form
772510
In theory 11 - one for each dimension.\n\nIn practice 3 - One to hold, one to turn, and one to rebuttal the whole time.  :-)
293465
check out this link:\n\nhttp://pubs.logicalexpressions.com/Pub0009/LPMArticle.asp?ID=446\n\nhope this helps
966444
Sorry I'm not english spoken\n\nIl suffit de choisir deux vecteurs u et v non nuls et non liés.\nu ∧ v ≠ 0\nOn constate alors que :\n(u ∧ u) ∧ v = 0 ∧ v = 0\nSupposons que :\nu ∧ (u ∧ v) = 0\nAlors\nu et u ∧ v sont liés\nCe qui est absurde car :\nu ∧ v ⊥ u\nDonc :\nu ∧ (u ∧ v) ≠ 0\nD'où :\n(u ∧ u) ∧ v ≠ u ∧ (u ∧ v)
1069244
Sounds kind of vague and wrong.  Gaps don't prove anything.  Gaps are the unknown.  We can make educated guesses about what happens in them, though.  The laws of physics create logical progression through a series of systematic methodical stages.  That is happening everywhere, all the time.  God doesn't have anything to do with it, unless he wrote the laws of physics, and then left.
246532
Read 'The Unity of Philosophical Experience' by Etienne Gilson.  He ably dismantles this kind of Cartesian nonsense in the relevant section.
495947
i am intrigued by your idea of LOGIC!!! interesting
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
1028066
thought, knowledge, reason, observation
99262
Logic\nCritical thinking\nQuantatative reasoning\n\nyou can't live without these tools for life. Without them one is lost and will not be productive.
716918
It is a combination of things really... some of which have been mentioned but a few have not.\n\n1. Practice. This includes practicing writing code that works, reading books and trying to understand what is being said, try the examples given to you for yourself, never walk away from code which you don't fully understand yet.\n\n2. I touched on this in the first point, reading good books and understanding what is being written. Step through line by line of an example and ask yourself "how does this line work in relation to what has been written before it?"\n\n3. My favorite and most useful one... pretend you are a computer that can only understand one thing at a time! That is what compilers do. They encounter each line with a fresh look and a library of values. Do the same thing as a compiler.\n\n4. Join a group of people that have the same skill. When you get together you feed off one another's logic and it helps you develop logical ideas better. You can teach each other ideas behind logic.\n\n5. Lastly, I like to read a book on philosophical logic sometimes. It helps me a bit with programming. The whole idea of... if all "A's" are "B's" and you are an "A" therefore you are also a "B" type of thing. You can find these sort of things in books about critical thinking. Like the various logic patterns such as modus ponens and modus tollens. After all, programming is a computer variation of true logic.\n\nHope some of these ideas come in handy for you as they have for me. Enjoy!
1106346
You know there are 8 axioms in mathematics which we cannot prove\n\n1) if 'a' and 'b' are integers then 'a+b' is an integer and 'a.b' is an integer (Closure law)\n2) a + b = b + a and a..b = b.a (cumulative law)\n3) a + (b + c) = (a + b) + c (Associative law)\n4) a (b + c) = a.b + a.c (Distributive law)\n5) a + 0 = a = 0 + a (Additive Identity)\n6) a.1 = a = 1.a (Multiplicitive Identity)\n7) for all integer 'a' there is a unique integer (-a) such that a + (-a) = 0\n8) I can't remember...\n\nSo we can prove your requirement using above axioms\n\n0 + 0 = 0 (Obivious) \na ( 0 + 0 ) = a.0 (Multiplying by same factor)\na.0 + a.0 = a.0 (Distributive over addition)\na is an integer and 0 is an integer so a.0 is an integer, hence there exits a unique -(a.0) such that -(a.0) + a.0 = 0\n\nso adding -(a.0) both sides\n\n-(a.0) + (a.0 + a.0) = -(a.0) + (a.0) \n(-(a.0) + a.0 )+ a.0 = 0 (associative law)\n0 + a.0 = 0\na.0 = 0 (additive identity)
273146
:}\nchance without cause is a logical impossibility
210081
Try any of these on Amazon, always a good site to go to for books:\n\nhttp://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=br_ss_hs/102-2171272-4513707?search-alias=aps&keywords=Fundamentals%20of%20Law%20Enforcement%20Management