Logic by the good Reverend Dodgson.

[Arising_uk]

The Game of Logic
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/4763

Symbolic Logic
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/28696

Fun and interesting way to Logic. Not the normal approach but gives a good grounding in the way of thinking in Logic.

Watta guy! And god bless the Guttenberg Project.

[artisticsolution]

So I'm like. "Cool...arising posted something helpful!"

And then I started to read...

and I was like, "wtf?"

"The world contains many THINGS (such as "Buns", "Babies", "Beetles".
"Battledores". &c.); and these Things possess many ATTRIBUTES
(such as "baked", "beautiful", "black", "broken", &c.: in fact,
whatever can be "attributed to", that is "said to belong to", any
Thing, is an Attribute). Whenever we wish to mention a Thing, we
use a SUBSTANTIVE: when we wish to mention an Attribute, we use
an ADJECTIVE. People have asked the question "Can a Thing exist
without any Attributes belonging to it?" It is a very puzzling
question, and I'm not going to try to answer it: let us turn up
our noses, and treat it with contemptuous silence, as if it really
wasn't worth noticing. But, if they put it the other way, and ask
"Can an Attribute exist without any Thing for it to belong to?", we
may say at once "No: no more than a Baby could go a railway-journey
with no one to take care of it!" You never saw "beautiful" floating
about in the air, or littered about on the floor, without any Thing
to BE beautiful, now did you?"

Yes, as a matter of fact I have seen "beautiful" floating around in the air. And if you can't, then I am starting to believe the people, who have told me all my life that I think the sun doesn't shine until I wake up in the morning, are right. Maybe they have a point...maybe I am a fairy princess and beauty doesn't float around until I walk by. Hence the reason others can't see it!

Seriously though...thanks Arising....I will try with all I have to understand this. Honestly I will. I will suppress every desire I have to argue with this book and hopefully I will learn something. I will get back to you if I have any questions if that is okay?

[Arising_uk]

Do you think Lewis Carrolls books are beautiful? If so then maybe he does not mean what you read, as you quoted "beautiful" before assigning the action of a thing to it, "floating", which I think is his point. If you are seeing a "beautiful" in the air could you paint it to show us?

[Richard Baron]

I will suppress every desire I have to argue with this book and hopefully I will learn something.

But no AS, it is encouraged, with him to argue. That way can one more learn. And if you more fun with him have would like to, can you this piece enjoy:

http://www.ditext.com/carroll/tortoise.html

[Arising_uk]

...
Seriously though...thanks Arising....I will try with all I have to understand this. Honestly I will. I will suppress every desire I have to argue with this book and hopefully I will learn something. I will get back to you if I have any questions if that is okay?

Not sure I'll be much help as its many years since I 'found' his Symbolic Logic, never read The Game of Logic and since his logical notation appears to be his, your understanding will probably be as useful as mine as I'll be effectively be reading for the first time. I may be able to give examples from modern Symbolic Logic but not sure it would assist with any questions about Dodgsons logic. I do remember thinking this was a much more fun way to get some of the ideas of Logic across than the textbooks I was given but since it wasn't adopted I assume it has some issues, although maybe just timing, who knows, maybe I'll understand why this time but it'll take some effort as these are instructional books.

[artisticsolution]

If you are seeing a "beautiful" in the air could you paint it to show us?

No Arising, I do not have that talent. Try as I may I don't know how to paint the invisible 'sparkle' or the dance it makes as it swirls around me in the air. I fail as an artist in that respect.

Still reading....

[Richard Baron]

A quick glance at the books suggests that they essentially do syllogisms with Venn diagrams, and use an ingenious square form of diagram, rather than the more usual overlapping circles, in order to keep the diagrams clear when there are several properties that objects may or may not have (with three properties, you need 8 regions, with 4 properties, 16, and so on).

An alternative presentation of syllogisms with Venn diagrams may be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism# ... syllogisms

(Click on each diagram to make it large enough to read. Scroll up to earlier parts of the article for a full explanation of syllogisms.)

There is plenty of free material on logic on the Internet. Modesty is not quite strong enough to stop me mentioning the text behind the link "Introduction to logic" here:

http://www.rbphilo.com/coursenotes.html

[Impenitent]

Lewis Carroll's books beautiful? no...

frumious perhaps...

-Imp

[Arising_uk]

Imp -

RB - I think he gives comparison examples of Venns and Eulers diagrammatic methods somewhere near the end of SL.

[artisticsolution]

A quick glance at the books suggests that they essentially do syllogisms with Venn diagrams, and use an ingenious square form of diagram, rather than the more usual overlapping circles, in order to keep the diagrams clear when there are several properties that objects may or may not have (with three properties, you need 8 regions, with 4 properties, 16, and so on).

An alternative presentation of syllogisms with Venn diagrams may be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism# ... syllogisms

(Click on each diagram to make it large enough to read. Scroll up to earlier parts of the article for a full explanation of syllogisms.)

There is plenty of free material on logic on the Internet. Modesty is not quite strong enough to stop me mentioning the text behind the link "Introduction to logic" here:

http://www.rbphilo.com/coursenotes.html

Thanks Richard, it is very generous of you to share your knowledge with us. I have been to your site and started to read "Introduction to logic" before. It is much easier to understand than wikipedia. Although I must admit it gets more difficult as you go along and frankly, I keep running out of fingers and toes in order to keep everything organized in my mind. As always, I need someone to show me....to do it visually for me so I can see it. I have never been good at reading and being able to figure it out on my own. Perhaps you have a video titled "Logic and you"....(I can hear the musak intro playing now)

I will keep trying...maybe I can find someone here to help.

[Arising_uk]

... As always, I need someone to show me....to do it visually for me so I can see it. ...

Which is what the good Rev is doing. Have you made the two cards and got the nine counters at hand when you read him? A better picture can be found at the beginning of his Symbolic Logic in the HTML version, the second link.

[artisticsolution]

First I read through it trying to keep things straight on my fingers an toes...until he said if you don't understand then read it again until you do. It was then that I drew the counters but then I was called away for business. I did have a question about the nine...this may sound dumb but in the box with the eight sections it is really 9 if you count the whole box? and the one with 4 is really 5 because he is counting the whole box? Do you see where I get confused? Because I am looking at things in a visual way..not in a "mathematical" way. Anyway...maybe it will clear up with the second reading...which will have to be later today. Thank God I have a mural today....it used to be feast or famine for artists...now it's only famine. Wish the people who ran our government knew about this thing called logic. They might be able to fix the economy.

Thanks arising.

[Arising_uk]

Hi AS,
Which book are you attempting?

First I read through it trying to keep things straight on my fingers an toes...until he said if you don't understand then read it again until you do. It was then that I drew the counters but then I was called away for business. I did have a question about the nine...this may sound dumb but in the box with the eight sections it is really 9 if you count the whole box? and the one with 4 is really 5 because he is counting the whole box? Do you see where I get confused? Because I am looking at things in a visual way..not in a "mathematical" way. ...

So why all the counting on your fingers and toes, and why all the numbers? It is the visual way he is teaching, a way of visualising what three specific propositions mean using his two diagrams and some counters. What do you mean by "draw" the counters? Have you no buttons or games you could pillage? You do draw the diagrams.
He says think of the box as a cupboard he could name or number the sections anyway he likes, the point is that the whole cupboard is all there is when talking about the three propositions. But you are correct, the ninth box is what he calls the Universe, not our Universe, although it could be, but the Universe of the Things the propositions are concerned with, and in his example so far it appears to be the Universe of new or not new and nice or not nice cakes.

Anyway...maybe it will clear up with the second reading...which will have to be later today. Thank God I have a mural today....it used to be feast or famine for artists...now it's only famine. ...

Sorry to hear it.

Think not so much reading but playing the game with the counters. Don't move on until you understand what he's describing but don't be surprised if it seems very simple and you can quickly move on.

Wish the people who ran our government knew about this thing called logic. They might be able to fix the economy. ...

Wish it was that simple.

Thanks arising.

Chin-up.

[Arising_uk]

p.s.
I don't doubt that drawing them will be the end result but I think the coloured counters an interesting teaching tool.

[artisticsolution]

Hi Arising,

A:Which book are you attempting?

AS:I am attempting the first link you provided. Am I supposed to read both at the same time? I haven't even gotten around to the second link. Do I need to do that before playing the game?

A: So why all the counting on your fingers and toes, and why all the numbers? It is the visual way he is teaching, a way of visualising what three specific propositions mean using his two diagrams and some counters. What do you mean by "draw" the counters? Have you no buttons or games you could pillage? You do draw the diagrams.

AS: Sorry I meant to say diagram not counters. And I was using fingers and toes because I didn't catch on that he was really being serious about "the game" until I read "if you don't understand then go back and read the beginning again. lol It takes me a while to catch on...I thought I was just going to read a little easy story and presto I would understand.

A:He says think of the box as a cupboard he could name or number the sections anyway he likes, the point is that the whole cupboard is all there is when talking about the three propositions.

AS: Okay, thanks. See this is the stuff all you logic people take for granted that everyone knows. But what you don't understand is not everyone can connect the dots this way. So the cupboard will always be there when talking about the 3 propositions and so you can always visualize it when you do logic? Is that what you are saying?

A: But you are correct, the ninth box is what he calls the Universe, not our Universe, although it could be, but the Universe of the Things the propositions are concerned with, and in his example so far it appears to be the Universe of new or not new and nice or not nice cakes.

AS: Okay...with you/him so far in this respect. I didn't get a chance to read further yesterday. I had another estimate, this time for faux finish, which is not as fun as painting a mural but at this point I will even take boring jobs! Hopefully I will be able to continue reading and playing the game when I get home.