1
From: "Human Potential & Development."
Split Justification: Development fundamentally involves both our inner landscape (**Internal World**) and our interaction with everything outside us (**External World**). (Ref: Subject-Object Distinction)..
2
From: "Internal World (The Self)"
Split Justification: The Internal World involves both mental processes (**Cognitive Sphere**) and physical experiences (**Somatic Sphere**). (Ref: Mind-Body Distinction)
3
From: "Cognitive Sphere"
Split Justification: Cognition operates via deliberate, logical steps (**Analytical Processing**) and faster, intuitive pattern-matching (**Intuitive/Associative Processing**). (Ref: Dual Process Theory)
4
From: "Analytical Processing"
Split Justification: Analytical thought engages distinct symbolic systems: abstract logic and mathematics (**Quantitative/Logical Reasoning**) versus structured language (**Linguistic/Verbal Reasoning**).
5
From: "Quantitative/Logical Reasoning"
Split Justification: Logical reasoning can be strictly formal following rules of inference (**Deductive Proof**) or drawing general conclusions from specific examples (**Inductive Reasoning Case Study**). (L5 Split)
6
From: "Deductive Proof."
Split Justification: Deductive systems can be analyzed based on the relationship between whole statements (**Propositional Logic**) or the properties of objects and their relations (**Predicate Logic**). (L6 Split)
7
From: "Predicate Logic"
Split Justification: Predicate logic extends reasoning to include variables and quantities (**Understanding Quantifiers**) and applying these to sets of objects (**Basic Set Theory Proof**).
8
From: "Basic Set Theory Proof"
Split Justification: This dichotomy distinguishes between two fundamental methodologies for constructing basic set theory proofs: element-wise proofs, which analyze the membership of individual elements using predicate logic definitions of set operations, and algebraic proofs, which manipulate set expressions using established set identities and laws. These two approaches represent distinct, yet comprehensive, methods for proving set theoretic statements.
9
From: "Algebraic Set Theory Proof"
Split Justification: This dichotomy distinguishes between proofs that primarily rely on the manipulation of symbols and application of axioms within a formal algebraic system (e.g., Boolean algebra) and proofs that leverage the interpretation of those algebraic expressions in terms of set-theoretic models, often involving element-level reasoning or the specific properties of sets as the underlying structure. Together, these methods comprehensively cover the approaches to constructing algebraic set theory proofs.
10
From: "Formal Algebraic Derivations"
Split Justification: This dichotomy distinguishes between formal algebraic derivations aimed at establishing the universal truth or equivalence of algebraic expressions (e.g., proving identities, theorems) and those aimed at finding specific solutions to conditional statements (e.g., solving equations, inequalities) or transforming expressions into different but equivalent forms (e.g., simplification, factorization). Both categories involve formal deductive steps and comprehensively cover the scope of algebraic derivations.
11
From: "Derivations for Proving General Equalities or Statements"
Split Justification: This split categorizes the methods of derivation based on their fundamental logical approach to establishing the truth of a general equality or statement. Direct proofs proceed from known premises or established facts through a sequence of logical inferences to directly demonstrate the conclusion. Indirect proofs, such as proof by contradiction or proof of the contrapositive, establish the conclusion by showing that assuming its negation (or the negation of its contrapositive) leads to a logical inconsistency. Both are exhaustive and distinct primary methods for constructing formal derivations.
12
From: "Derivations via Direct Proof"
Split Justification: This dichotomy separates direct proofs based on the primary logical quantifier of the statement being proven. Universal statements (e.g., "for all x, P(x)") require demonstrating a property holds for every element in a domain, typically by assuming an arbitrary element. Existential statements (e.g., "there exists an x such that P(x)") require demonstrating that at least one such element exists, often by construction or direct identification. These two categories are fundamental, mutually exclusive in their primary form, and comprehensively cover all general statements suitable for direct proof.
✓
Topic: "Derivations for Existential Statements" (W6367)