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: "Independent Existential Claims"
Split Justification: This split categorizes independent existential claims based on the cardinality of the existence asserted. "Assertions of Non-Empty Existence" refer to claims that state "there exists at least one entity" (∃x P(x)). "Assertions of Unique Existence" refer to claims that state "there exists exactly one entity" (∃!x P(x)). These represent a fundamental dichotomy in the nature of existential claims concerning the quantity of entities whose existence is asserted, are mutually exclusive as distinct types of claims, and together cover the primary ways an independent existence can be quantified.
11
From: "Assertions of Unique Existence"
Split Justification: This dichotomy distinguishes assertions of unique existence based on their epistemic justification. A priori assertions are those whose truth can be established through pure reasoning and definition, independent of sensory experience. A posteriori assertions require empirical observation and experience of the world to verify their truth. This is a fundamental and mutually exclusive distinction covering all possible justifications for unique existence claims.
12
From: "Assertions of A Posteriori Unique Existence"
Split Justification: This dichotomy distinguishes between assertions of unique existence derived from immediate, firsthand sensory experience (direct empirical observation) and those derived from the analysis, synthesis, or logical deduction based on a body of empirical data, evidence, or experiments (empirical inference). Both categories fall under 'a posteriori' claims but represent distinct methodologies for establishing the uniqueness.
✓
Topic: "Assertions of Uniqueness from Empirical Inference" (W7839)