What's your take on:

A. Math requires logic: Numbers are patterns e.g. 1 is the pattern in the sets {7}, {a}, {dog}, {@}. To discern the pattern one reasons thus:

1. I'll use a correspondence relationship i.e. I'll match the elements of one set to the elements of the other set.

2. IF I follow the rule set out in 1 THEN, I can match "7" in the first set to "a" in the second set with nothing left over, so and so forth with the other sets too. LOGIC

3. Let's label this pattern between the sets as one.

B. Logic doesn't require math:

1. All men are mortal

2. Socrates is a man

Ergo,

3. Socrates is mortal

unless

1. 100% of men are mortal

2. Socrates is a man

Thus,

3. Socrartes is 100% mortal
?

↪Gnomon
What's your take on: — TheMadFool

You got me there. I was never good at math or logic. As far as I'm concerned, Socrates was a myth. :joke:

You got me there. I was never good at math or logic. As far as I'm concerned, Socrates was a myth. :joke: — Gnomon

No problem! Your logic's better than mine by the way.