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: "Equivalence to "There Exists Not""
Split Justification: This split differentiates the two distinct logical forms that are demonstrated to be equivalent by the parent concept. One child represents the "Universal Negation" concept established earlier in the hierarchy, and the other represents the "There Exists Not" formulation to which it is equivalent.
12
From: "Negation of Existential Quantification (¬∃x P(x))"
Split Justification: The parent concept, Negation of Existential Quantification (¬∃x P(x)), can be fundamentally understood in two ways: first, as a direct assertion that no entity exists with property P(x); and second, by its logical equivalence to ∀x ¬P(x), which implies that for all entities, the property P(x) is denied. This dichotomy separates the explicit assertion of non-existence from the universal reach of that denial.
✓
Topic: "Universal Scope of Denial" (W7967)