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: "Existential Quantifiers"
Split Justification: This dichotomy differentiates existential assertions based on their relationship with other quantifiers in a statement. Independent existential claims assert existence without being conditional on a universally quantified variable (e.g., ∃x P(x) or ∃x ∃y Q(x,y)). Dependent existential claims assert the existence of an element whose identity or properties rely on the value of a universally quantified variable within whose scope it falls (e.g., ∀y ∃x P(x,y), where x's existence depends on y). This distinction is fundamental to understanding the structure and interpretation of complex quantified statements.
10
From: "Dependent Existential Claims"
Split Justification: This dichotomy distinguishes dependent existential claims based on whether the existence of the dependent entity is asserted to be unique for each instance of the independent entity (Uniquely Dependent) or if it merely asserts the existence of at least one such entity without specifying uniqueness (Non-Uniquely Dependent). This reflects the logical distinction between unique existential quantification (∃!) and general existential quantification (∃) in the context of dependencies established by nested quantifiers (e.g., ∀x ∃!y P(x,y) vs. ∀x ∃y P(x,y)).
11
From: "Uniquely Dependent Existential Claims"
Split Justification: This split differentiates between uniquely dependent existential claims based on their logical formulation. The first category encompasses claims where the uniquely dependent entity is explicitly identified or constructed by a functional term (e.g., 'f(x)'), where the uniqueness is inherent in the definition of a function. The second category includes claims where the uniqueness of the dependent entity is explicitly asserted for a given predicate (P(x,y)) using the unique existential quantifier (∃!y P(x,y)), where the predicate itself might not be presented as a direct functional definition. This dichotomy distinguishes between the reliance on function symbols as unique designators versus the assertion of uniqueness for entities satisfying a specific predicate.
12
From: "Uniquely Defined by Functional Terms"
Split Justification: "Uniquely Defined by Functional Terms" refers to an entity being specified by means of a function. This can occur in two primary ways: either the definition directly and explicitly states the entity as the result of a function (e.g., x = f(y)), or the definition implicitly describes the entity as the unique value that satisfies a particular functional relationship or property (e.g., x is the unique value such that g(x,y) = 0). These two categories are mutually exclusive in their directness of specification and comprehensively cover how an entity can be uniquely specified using functional terms within logical and mathematical contexts.
✓
Topic: "Implicit Functional Definition" (W6559)