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: "Element-wise Set Theory Proof"
Split Justification: Element-wise set theory proofs fundamentally aim to establish either that two sets are identical (equality) or that one set is contained within another (inclusion). These represent the two distinct primary objectives of such proofs, which are mutually exclusive in their overall goal and together cover the scope of element-wise set theory proofs.
10
From: "Proof of Set Inclusion"
Split Justification: This fundamental dichotomy distinguishes between proving set inclusion by directly assuming an element belongs to the first set and then logically demonstrating its membership in the second set, versus assuming the negation of set inclusion and deriving a contradiction.
11
From: "Indirect Proof of Set Inclusion"
Split Justification: These two methods represent the fundamental and distinct strategies for indirect proof. Proof by contrapositive involves directly proving a logically equivalent statement, whereas proof by contradiction involves assuming the negation of the desired conclusion and demonstrating that this leads to a logical inconsistency.
12
From: "Proof by Contrapositive for Set Inclusion"
Split Justification: This dichotomy separates the two core logical components of a proof by contrapositive for set inclusion (A ⊆ B): the interpretation and expansion of the initial assumption (an element not in the superset B), and the subsequent derivation of the conclusion (that the element is not in the subset A). These represent the 'if' and 'then' clauses of the contrapositive implication (x ∉ B ⇒ x ∉ A), making them mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive of the proof method's logical flow.
✓
Topic: "Deduction of Element's Non-Membership in Subset" (W7007)