Some Things I've Been Up To (Whether You Care to Know or Not)

[Cuddlefish]

During my short time T.A.-ing for my logic prof., I have reformatted the square of opposition (a diagram designed to point out the immediate inferences of any logical statement, created by Aristotle and not updated since the 19th century) to require the memorization of fewer rules and to be more intuitive to new students of logic. In one day I have been able to take four students who absolutely BOMBED the quiz, and, through the use of my modified square of opposition (which I'm now calling 'The Dimo Calculator'), I was able to teach each student how to make immediate inferences without confusion, with a 100% success rate. This was achieved in no more than a half-hour per student (compare this to the many hours spent by the prof. with little to no results). I cannot stop thinking about it.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

1.  RAH!

2.  Do we know you?

[Cuddlefish]

1. Indeed
2. You used to, my bad.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

1. Indeed
2. You used to, my bad.

Welcome back, spag.

[Cuddlefish]

1. Indeed
2. You used to, my bad.

Welcome back, spag.

To be fair, I never left in spirit.

Continuing in fairness, 'here in spirit' is pretty fuckin' useless. So, again, my bad.

But, as always, thanks for havin' me.

[LMNO]

Please to present this new square to the group, please and thank you.

[Pæs]

Please to present this new square to the group, please and thank you.

THIS.

[Cuddlefish]

Well, I could explain it better in person, and I could draw it better by hand, but if you want to give me a bit, I can write something up on how it works and somehow come up with a graphic. Mind you, if this really is as cool as I think it may be, it's senior thesis material, and I'd rather be a little tight-lipped about it while I'm working on it.

But, I will tell you this: the old square over-simplifies everything. By abstracting out a second square (one for T statements only, and one for F statements only) you have no parts of the diagram doing double duty (True A statements go in the same place as False ones, etc., in the old diagram, which in many cases, leads to confusion regarding certain types of inferences). Further, if you stack the two squares in such a way, it highlights a third zone which automatically tells you which statements produce unknown inferences, thus eliminating the need to remember the rules of contraries, and allowing you to replace the rules of alteration/sub-alteration with a simpler rule, which gives you a total of only two rules, one universal to all instances on the diagram, and one conditional dependent on the zone in which you begin inferring.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Dude, I was thinking about you earlier. Good to see you!

[Cuddlefish]

Dude, I was thinking about you earlier. Good to see you!

yessir. when we meatup, yo?

U2, LMNO. Meatup.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Dude, I was thinking about you earlier. Good to see you!

yessir. when we meatup, yo?

U2, LMNO. Meatup.

I've got 3 Biology related and 1 Math related class this semester. I have Spring Break the week of March 17. Note however, that Villager's birthday is the 21st.

[East Coast Hustle]

Well, I could explain it better in person, and I could draw it better by hand, but if you want to give me a bit, I can write something up on how it works and somehow come up with a graphic. Mind you, if this really is as cool as I think it may be, it's senior thesis material, and I'd rather be a little tight-lipped about it while I'm working on it.

But, I will tell you this: the old square over-simplifies everything. By abstracting out a second square (one for T statements only, and one for F statements only) you have no parts of the diagram doing double duty (True A statements go in the same place as False ones, etc., in the old diagram, which in many cases, leads to confusion regarding certain types of inferences). Further, if you stack the two squares in such a way, it highlights a third zone which automatically tells you which statements produce unknown inferences, thus eliminating the need to remember the rules of contraries, and allowing you to replace the rules of alteration/sub-alteration with a simpler rule, which gives you a total of only two rules, one universal to all instances on the diagram, and one conditional dependent on the zone in which you begin inferring.

I think I sort of understand the gist of what you're saying, maybe. It sounds like the cliffs notes version is a simpler way to teach people how to use logic? That's wicked fucking cool.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Dimo!

Write that shit up. Seriously, write it up formally. Get your name on it.

[Reginald Ret]

Dimo!

Write that shit up. Seriously, write it up formally. Get your name on it.

Very much thisness.

[Junkenstein]

Dimo!

Write that shit up. Seriously, write it up formally. Get your name on it.

Very much thisness.

And a third, because if nothing else I'd like to see it. Sounds excellent.