>>24379326

Maduro made a call to get a deal due to logic and leading information of this board. Same with Iran, we got them to the negotiating table. I told Netanyahu not to target the Ayatollah, because it is one thing to make himself into a reciprocal target, but to bring President Trump and his family into the mix, was not his call to make, and he has also destroyed the credibility to a certain degree of this board. I hope all future leaders will understand, when negotiating and taking advice, that our word in the US is solid, when their is no Israeli eager promiscuous drivers in the decision process. We should not be targeting the Ayatollah's son, without giving him a proper chance to speak, just as we shouldn't hold Bibi's son accountable for his father's actions. You can't expect the Ayatollah' son to have a positive response, after Israel killed his father and family, then pursued and attacked him, wounding him. The sons will not be put to death on account of the fathers, nor the fathers on account of the sons, but each for their own inequities.

>>24379364

Logic, is about pathfinding and result sets.

Sometimes sets are a series of results that satisfies a request, other times they are scalar and offer only one solution or path, or they are non deterministic and as a result are null and void.

A promise is a future event that is either realized or not. It satisfies one of the 3 logical result sets, and can be polled for activity or cancelled all together as a failed operation. A promise cannot be altered in it's payload or promise of it's contents thereof. Least you have an unreliable system of broken promises with no security guarantees that are easily hijack by rouge operators and operations.

>>24379364

>>24379376

>I think it's more accurate to say that some logic is based on facts

There is a difference between logic and reason. Everyone has reason few understand logic. Pure logic is about pathfinding. >>24379382

>>24379386

>So, what are you trying to say?

>>24379360

My first consideration is the lives of our Service members who are the ones that make the ultimate sacrifices. Every one that died, is due to my failure to make others understand the solutions. I understand the time constraints and the imminent threats alongside the time delay factors thoroughly. Israel put additional pressure on the constraints by including ballistic missiles arsenal capabilities, which Iran was not willing to negotiate on, was not using, but as a result, is now reducing much of it's payload on Israel and the Gulf states. Of course there was a plan for Iran to strike imminently, because broadcasting Israel acquiring 50 new F35's while negotiating, alters security concerns when coupled with rhetoric of force. Iran was no saint, and I posted about how they once used a sinking civilian vessel to attack our Navy breaking International humanitarian protocols for search and rescue operations. Nevertheless, it would have been better for Israel if they were not so eager and greedy for conflict as we were trying to negotiate nuclear inspections, which the Iranians had agreed to. But they put ballistic missiles on the table as non negotiable too, altering the criteria. Iran was even considering letting the US put future bases to guard the Straits, when Israel struck. The next logical phase after inspection, would have been good faith of sanctions relief in partial, then the next step should have been ballistics. This is the problem of not understanding logic and pathfinding.

>>24379396

>Furthermore, wouldn't showing a path forward also be considered a form of logic?

>Wouldn't it be fair to define logic as one of the processes of thinking?

Reasons, is a process of thinking. Everyone has reasons that leads them on paths in search of goals. Logic introduces variables into criteria, that regular reasoning does not consider; almost always. In order to find the path in logic, all logic variables have to be terminated conclusively, meaning all criteria must be satisfied. Someone who has reason will find a path almost always on the "Shortest Open Path First" principle, due to laziness, whereas Logic would consider all variables and the costs associated with them in solving the equation.

>>24379391

emotional logic also exists = reason not logic.

Pathfinding and cost for example. You might go travel somewhere in the shortest open path first, OSPF, but if you didn't consider that no gas station is available once you get there, that cost might stop you from returning. Whereas another long path, would allow you to refuel, then go to your destination, and transverse the same way. Logic considers variables such as costing, among others, that have to be satisfied as part of the equation that returns a result. If the job was to go get a stranded starving person, OSPF, would have returned null and void in this case.

>>24379393

Emotions is reasons

Logic has nothing to do with emotions but is about pathfinding. Although emotions would be a logic variable that has to be satisfied in some equations, when dealing with egos or feelings, in order to find a path that returns a desired result. Hope that makes sense.

>>24379398

It's about pathfinding, a trap, is a path that did not take into consideration all logic variables and resolve them beforehand. The right logic terminates ambiguity and either returns a series of paths, one path, or a path that is null or void of a result.

>>24379432

>(logical construction)

Logic has nothing to do with construction in itself, but what is already there, constructed as a path result(s) or returns a non existent construct. Construction is a whole other topic, of how things are synthesized, to create something by putting pieces together.

>>24379426

>Isn't logic part of the thought process?

Not in all cases, but reasoning is part of the thought process. Logic is like a database query in reverse, instead of asking a question to the database or data to filter a result set, you are actually turning the process insider out by saying, I know this is the answer, give me all the paths , that satisfies this request, taking into consideration these variables that must be satisfied, in order to return a path or result set.

>>24379440

>I define logical explanation and the aggregation of details in that way

>Are you not very flexible in adapting to the new definition?

Aggregation is putting things together. Putting things together is synthesis and there are many forms of putting things into a construct. You are free to reason about it how you like, but when you analyze the primatives, you do not pollute them with other associations because then you are left with systems that you cannot logically reason about. If logic includes construction then you do not have a pure view of logic and that intermingling will almost always lead to edge cases and constant ambiguities. For exampe, I gave a discourse on a promise, and if you start to alter what promises are, then you subject yourself to anything that wants to consider itself as part of the system which will only lead to broken promises, ambiguity, and systems that are impossible to reason about logically.

>>24379445

There is the formal and the informal. The formal is what formulations are based on, where all attributes and criteria are well know, and all that derive from it can be logically reasoned about. The informal does not have defining rules. When no set of known rules are applied, any criteria can be a applied and be valid based upon a reason or reasoning. You can never deterministically reason logically about the informal, but only the formal.

>>24379454

>>If one chooses to abandon logical thinking, failure is inevitable

Not necessarily, If one chooses to abandon logical thinking failure or success is non deterministic.

>>24379469

I did not insult you, but was talking from a true perspective of a programmer who lives by these concepts. There are pure and impure systems, to reason about pure systems is much easier than as systems get more impure. If I gave you X as a variable that can change over time, in a complex system where something goes wrong, now you will have to path find in order to figure out how X got into that state. Whereas if X is a constant, you can quickly reason about it. X is pure in this case, and it's definition does not change over time nor be associated with new values. Logic in it's pure form is about path finding that either returns multiple paths or data, one path or scalar result, or null, meaning there is no "construct" or thing that was constructed that satisfies the request.

>>24379500

Nothing bother me. Just saying that you can believe what you want or create informal constructs all day long like the next person. At the core, logic is about finding a solution that was already created and the finding the path to it. Whereas you want to say part of my logic includes construction which pollutes pathfinding with creating new constructs. There are a plethora of formal construction methods, but now you are no longer looking to find something that was there, but to create something that may or may not exist.

>>24379508

>but to create something that may or may not exist.

James Comey did this with constructive analysis. As he analyzed he made constructs that weren't there or reduced criteria for positive hits thus creating new constructs. It was no longer about pathfinding, but informal reasoning.