Error processing SSI file
<p><b>Your browser does not support inline frames or is currently configured not to display inline frames. To fix this just click one of the following options:</b></p> <p align="center"><a target="_blank" href="http://www.microsoft.com/">Update your Browser</a> or <a target="_blank" href="http://www.opera.com/">Download Opera</a> or <a target="_blank" href=http://www.mozilla.com/">Download Mozilla</a></p> <p><font color="#CC0000">It is vitally important to your computer's security that you update your browser if it is out of date. Hackers exploit the shortcomings of older browsers to vandalise computers. <b>Your</b> computer could be next if your browser is neglected!</font></p> <h4 align="center"><a href="http://www.fieldcraft.eu/ki.htm">Site Map</a></h4> <h1>Adding perspective to analysis: some notes on Nested Logic.</h1> <p>Unfortunately, English is not efficient in expressing Nested Logic. English<br> speakers (I cannot speak for other languages) are not made accustomed to<br> nested concepts through the use of the language. Many are thrown when sets<br> and logic are part of the same question.<br> <br> Nested Logic could be described as a combination of Boolean Algebra and Set<br> Theory. It is through nested logic that we can determine that:<br> <br> "History is not a subset of Religion"<br> "Therefore the deduction of historical conclusions drawn from religious<br> sources is always invalid regardless the degree of concurrence with<br> historical conclusion drawn from historical sources"<br> <br> This is proven by the behaviour of the following program:<br> <br> Public Sub History ()<br> Call Religion<br> End Sub<br> <br> Public Sub Religion()<br> Call History<br> Call XXX<br> End Sub<br> <br> If you initiate the program by calling Religion, this subroutine will then<br> call History, and History will conclude, but will not necessarily conclude<br> Religion - even though they both end with the same statement: "End Sub".<br> Religion will then call XXX regardless, and then independently conclude.<br> Both conclusions even if identical, are separate and independent.<br> <br> Welcome to elementary Nested Logic. You have seen an example to the first or<br> second degree depending on your definitions. Programmers routinely program<br> to several degrees of nesting or "depth" (Some of us to dozens of degrees of<br> depth) with some quite common relationships including recursion:<br> <br> Public Sub XXX<br> X = Inputbox("Enter A Value.", "What is X?")<br> If X = 0 OR X = "" then Call XXX<br> End Sub<br> <br> There is a correct way that works and an incorrect way that does not work.<br> Ultimately, the logical proof of the practical results and subsequently<br> derived programming constraints are identical in structure to that<br> demonstrating:<br> A) You cannot get apples from an orange tree,<br> nor oranges from an apple tree.<br> (Mutual exclusion)<br> B) You cannot get an opaque primary colour from any<br> combination of opaque secondary colours, but any <br> opaque secondary colour can be derived from the <br> correct combination of opaque primary colours.<br> (Hierarchical exclusion)<br> C) You cannot get history from religion or religion from<br> science, etc.</p> <p>The individual elements and ideas of a text, must necessarily be a subset of the objectives and values defined by the text. Therefore the strength of an interpretation is directly proportional to its conformity to the purpose, objectives, and/or values of the text - and not to the qualifications nor authority of the interpreter, nor to any logic constructed without reference to the interpretations correct place in the information hierarchy. </p> <A HREF="http://www.fieldcraft.com.au/ki.htm"> </A><A HREF="http://home.iprimus.com.au/timothycasey/ki.htm"> </A>