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: "Understanding Quantifiers"
Split Justification: This dichotomy separates the two fundamental types of quantifiers (∀ and ∃) in predicate logic. Each type has distinct truth conditions, scope rules, and inferential patterns, making their understanding separate yet comprehensive for the parent concept.
9
From: "Universal Quantifiers"
Split Justification: This dichotomy categorizes universal quantifiers based on whether they assert the presence (affirmation) or absence (negation) of a specific property or relationship across an entire domain. These two categories are mutually exclusive, as a single universal statement either affirms or denies a property, and jointly exhaustive for all fundamental types of universal assertions.
10
From: "Universal Negation"
Split Justification: This split differentiates between the direct statement of negating a universally quantified proposition (¬(∀x P(x))) and its fundamental logical equivalence, which asserts the existence of at least one counterexample (∃x (¬P(x))). These represent two distinct, yet intrinsically linked, conceptualizations of universal negation, comprehensively covering the concept by separating its initial form from its constructive equivalent.
11
From: "Negation of "For All""
Split Justification: The negation of "For All" asserts the existence of at least one instance where a condition is not met. This fundamental dichotomy separates cases where there is exactly one such instance (unique counterexample) from cases where there are two or more such instances (multiple counterexamples), comprehensively covering all possibilities of "at least one" within a quantitative logical framework.
12
From: "Existence of a Unique Counterexample"
Split Justification: This dichotomy distinguishes between unique counterexamples that, due to their specific nature, necessitate a re-evaluation or refinement of the original universal statement's conditions or scope, and those that represent an isolated, non-generalizable exception that does not fundamentally alter the understanding or applicability of the rule beyond its specific instance.
✓
Topic: "Unique Counterexample as Singular Anomaly" (W6431)