Systematic Assignment per Exhaustive Model Set

Approx. Age: ~130 years, 5 mo old • Born: Feb 10 - 16, 1896

Curriculum Level

Level 12

Level Progress

2689/ 4096

Current Age

~130 years, 5 mo old

Cohort

Feb 10 - 16, 1896

🚧 Content Planning

Initial research phase. Tools and protocols are being defined.

Status: Planning

Planning

Selected

Ordered

Received

Active

Current Stage: Planning

Rationale & Protocol

Shelf justification and protocol are being finalized.

Primary Tool Tier 1 Selection

Primary tools are being selected for this week.

DIY / No-Tool Project (Tier 0)

A "No-Tool" project for this week is currently being designed.

Origin Path

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)..
➔ "Internal World (The Self)" (W1)
"External World (Interaction)" (W2)
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)
➔ "Cognitive Sphere" (W3)
"Somatic Sphere" (W5)
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)
➔ "Analytical Processing" (W7)
"Intuitive/Associative Processing" (W11)
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**).
➔ "Quantitative/Logical Reasoning" (W15)
"Linguistic/Verbal Reasoning" (W23)
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)
➔ "Deductive Proof." (W31)
"Inductive Reasoning Case Study" (W47)
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)
➔ "Propositional Logic" (W63)
"Predicate Logic" (W95)
7
From: "Propositional Logic"
Split Justification: Propositional logic involves determining the validity of arguments (**Truth Table Construction**) and applying rules of inference (**Using Modus Ponens/Tollens**).
➔ "Truth Table Construction" (W127)
"Using Modus Ponens/Tollens" (W191)
8
From: "Truth Table Construction"
Split Justification: The process is divided into defining the table's structural framework (Table Structuring) and the subsequent, row-by-row calculation of truth values based on logical operators (Truth Value Computation).
"Table Structuring" (W255)
➔ "Truth Value Computation" (W383)
9
From: "Truth Value Computation"
Split Justification: Truth value computation requires first identifying the values of the simplest statements (Atomic Proposition Evaluation) and then combining them using the rules of logical operators (Logical Connective Application).
➔ "Atomic Proposition Evaluation" (W639)
"Logical Connective Application" (W895)
10
From: "Atomic Proposition Evaluation"
Split Justification: This split differentiates between determining a proposition's truth value from external observation (Empirical Verification) versus accepting a value given by the rules of a formal system (Stipulated Assignment).
"Empirical Verification" (W1151)
➔ "Stipulated Assignment" (W1663)
11
From: "Stipulated Assignment"
Split Justification: This dichotomy distinguishes between truth value assignments made as part of an exhaustive exploration of all logical possibilities (e.g., constructing a truth table) and those explicitly provided as conditions or premises within a specific logical problem or scenario.
➔ "Systematic Truth Value Assignment" (W2687)
"Premised Truth Value Assignment" (W3711)
12
From: "Systematic Truth Value Assignment"
Split Justification: This split differentiates between two fundamental ways of systematically assigning truth values to atomic propositions. "Systematic Assignment per Specific Model" refers to applying a predefined, consistent set of truth values to all atomic propositions for a single, particular interpretation or scenario. "Systematic Assignment per Exhaustive Model Set" refers to the process of comprehensively generating all possible combinations of truth values for the atomic propositions, typically seen in the initial columns of a truth table, to ensure every logical possibility is covered. These two approaches are mutually exclusive in their scope (one specific case versus all possible cases) and together comprehensively cover the methods for systematically stipulating truth values for atomic propositions in propositional logic.
"Systematic Assignment per Specific Model" (W4735)
➔ "Systematic Assignment per Exhaustive Model Set" (W6783)
✓
Topic: "Systematic Assignment per Exhaustive Model Set" (W6783)

Research & Datasheets

No research files available.

What's Next? (Child Topics)

Final Topic Level

This topic does not split further in the current curriculum model.