Symbolic Logic and Venn Diagams
Posted: Fri May 09, 2025 6:18 am
I uploaded both John Venn and Charles Dodgson's work on Symbolic logic. However, as soon as I started, still in the introduction to Dodgson's Euclid books 1 and 2, and after his explaining that he has taught Euclid for 25 years in the classroom, I find his first boast, in the introduction, that he could simply Euclid Book 2 Prop 8. And he drew it. Just looking at his equations, I could see there was a problem. His first equation, which was exactly as Euclid had it was correct, however, his next three, are provably wrong. Although I went through Euclid a time or two drawing the figures and writing the equations, instead of looking that up, I did Euclid's figure and his equations which are all completely correct. I also noticed, Dodgsn seems to like to brag much, and demonstrate that, well, he don't understand it at all. This does not mean the whole work is bad, I just have to see what is good and what is garbage.
I already know, going into this study, something is wrong with the claim of Symbolic Logic, when in fact, every system of basic grammar we have is symbolic, and is used to make deductions with. Who, but an idiot, separates grammar from grammar simply by how it is used? It turns out, these highly intelligent people actually believe that if they do not understand how to do something in our historically given Grammar Matrix, the answer is not scribbling new symbols claiming that you have reinvented grammar. That is very transparent megalomania.
https://archive.org/details/dodgson-venn-symbolic-logic
Dodgson's Euclid and his modern rivals is actually in dialog form, I just might want to make an audio book version.
I already know, going into this study, something is wrong with the claim of Symbolic Logic, when in fact, every system of basic grammar we have is symbolic, and is used to make deductions with. Who, but an idiot, separates grammar from grammar simply by how it is used? It turns out, these highly intelligent people actually believe that if they do not understand how to do something in our historically given Grammar Matrix, the answer is not scribbling new symbols claiming that you have reinvented grammar. That is very transparent megalomania.
https://archive.org/details/dodgson-venn-symbolic-logic
Dodgson's Euclid and his modern rivals is actually in dialog form, I just might want to make an audio book version.