>>11758219skimmed the first few pages of how to prove it and naive set theory for notation. I have a semi background in formal, Aristotlean, and transcendental logic. I've read hurley, the organon, and a lot of hume Locke leibniz kant hegel. I'm a logic boy and a lot of these proofs are either borderline tautological or
if p then q, p, thus q.
some of them are much more complicated than that, and I'd be lying if I said I'm currently capable of more than a few of the proof exercises left to the reader, but I can do some of them. but
most importantly, I can follow them, and the solutions given for them.
supplement some of the vagueness with pictures and YouTube and drawing them out myself, and trust that eventually I'll be able to work well in this framework.
there's also a baby inductive proof intro here
https://youtu.be/L3LMbpZIKhQonce u get it u just kinda get it. the hardest part for me has been looking at something and saying thats just so obviously true If that's legal anything goes,and reconciling this against my ignorance of mathematical proof
if anyone wants a mindfuck of Aristotlean logic scholarship, get Aristotles categories and concerning interpretation translation with commentary by Kenneth Telford.
the biggest issue with all this set theory mathematical logic is the bedrock foundation of class inclusiveness and representation with venn diagrams. this is a patently false method of logical procedure, and it triggers me endlessly
