Suzom
Причем тут нравится или не нравится. Я люблю смотреть и исторические записи, но какое отношение они имеют к обсуждаемому?
Что-то с логикой у вас...
1. S kakoj logikoj ? Aristotelja ?
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-logic/
Esli wam nrawit'sja izuchajte ...
2.Я люблю смотреть и исторические записи, но какое отношение они имеют к обсуждаемому?
S waschej pozicii - Istoricheskaja zapis' AIDA s Tebaldi k postanowke AIDA w Mariinskom teatre ,obsuzdaemuju wische , otnoschenija ne imeet .
Ranne ykaziwalos ' - Kak wam ydoobno ,ne nrawit'sja ili ne imeet otnoschenija - ne smotrite
######################
3. The Subject of Logic: "Syllogisms"
All Aristotle's logic revolves around one notion: the deduction (sullogismos). A thorough explanation of what a deduction is, and what they are composed of, will necessarily lead us through the whole of his theory. What, then, is a deduction? Aristotle says:
A deduction is speech (logos) in which, certain things having been supposed, something different from those supposed results of necessity because of their being so. (Prior Analytics I.2, 24b18-20)
Each of the "things supposed" is a premise (protasis) of the argument, and what "results of necessity" is the conclusion (sumperasma).
The core of this definition is the notion of "resulting of necessity" (ex anankês sumbainein). This corresponds to a modern notion of logical consequence: X results of necessity from Y and Z if it would be impossible for X to be false when Y and Z are true. We could therefore take this to be a general definition of "valid argument".
3.1 Induction and Deduction
Deductions are one of two species of argument recognized by Aristotle. The other species is induction (epagôgê). He has far less to say about this than deduction, doing little more than characterize it as "argument from the particular to the universal". However, induction (or something very much like it) plays a crucial role in the theory of scientific knowledge in the Posterior Analytics: it is induction, or at any rate a cognitive process that moves from particulars to their generalizations, that is the basis of knowledge of the indemonstrable first principles of sciences.
3.2 Aristotelian Deductions and Modern Valid Arguments
Despite its wide generality, Aristotle's definition of deduction is not a precise match for a modern definition of validity. Some of the differences may have important consequences:
Aristotle explicitly says that what results of necessity must be different from what is supposed. This would rule out arguments in which the conclusion is identical to one of the premises. Modern notions of validity regard such arguments as valid, though trivially so.
The plural "certain things having been supposed" was taken by some ancient commentators to rule out arguments with only one premise.
The force of the qualification "because of their being so" has sometimes been seen as ruling out arguments in which the conclusion is not ‘relevant’ to the premises, e.g., arguments in which the premises are inconsistent, arguments with conclusions that would follow from any premises whatsoever, or arguments with superfluous premises
