Prior Analytics-Aristotle-paragraph 2-logically translated

Paragraph 2:

Sentence 1:

“A premiss then is a sentence affirming or denying one thing of another.”

A subject was introduced an act of affirming or not. All acts as deduction are of one thing from another. A premises was also termed, but was the same as the act itself of deduction.

Sentence 2:

“This is either universal or particular or indefinite.”

A deduction as act was a class called the …… Here begins a discourse. All deduction was accorded a universal term and I do know the term misapplied. So I alter to translated. It should read.

“This is either abstract or particular or not definite.”

I replace abstract for the word universal. An exact use was to be left for later works. Abstracting is defined elsewhere while the introduction simply demands a reader to understand the term. Abstract deduction was a class while the certain element of the class was the particular and if the term was unclear a not clear term was used for the class of deduction.

Particular inference means a sets element while the abstract set of elements denoted abstract deduction. Equating inference with deduction exactly. Not clear usage denoted the alternative to precise set terminology. Abstract existence was accorded by the Greeks so a set of all elements was a true transcendental set. Modern computer architecture has affirmed this correct view.

Sentence 3:

“By universal I mean the statement that something belongs to all or none of something else; by particular that it belongs to some or not to some or not to all; by indefinite that it does or does not belong, without any mark to show whether it is universal or particular, e.g. ‘contraries are subjects of the same science’, or ‘pleasure is not good’.”

So the terms are clarified as symmetric relative. A set as abstract then classifies the certain element while a term as particular was deduced. Here I inverted the abstract to allow the term symmetric. Aristotle is assured to have intended to discuss the symmetric for this reason. Its non-presence in his works indicates its likely lost status.

Symmetry allows classification as inference of deduction and the term particular implies the set element where existence itself may be all that is known. Ability to classify the set given any element was found impossible, making all classified set abstract. It is like the color red was to be classified without knowledge of the color itself.

Aristotle used the correct term, ‘belongs to all or none of something’ and scales the certain to allow function, terming, ‘belongs to some or not to some or not to all’ to allow partial set. A partial set was the term:

F(S(x,y,z)) = D(x,y)

A function to remove the element inverted a set test. A clear demonstration of the need to deeply consider his exact terms. Indefinite was then simply the term. A simple term was indefinite because it was unrelatable to its set. “contraries are subjects of the same science” defines any indefinite as a science itself of all only.

All indefinite are hardly expressable where as the set tests another. A set to cause the next was an exact test.

“pleasure is not good” terms a subject as not the element of good, but never defined either. Without any defined relation who could ever then be left to infer. A set existence as opposed to element existence is an exact reality. Declaring, ‘pleasure’ existent without stating its cause allows a like relation of indefinite set with ‘good’. Knowing of colors existence without a means to cause a red to exist is useless in deduction/inference.

Sentence 4:

“The demonstrative premises differs from the dialectical, because the demonstrative premises is the assertion of one of two contradictory statements(the demonstrator does not ask for his premises, but lays it down),whereas the dialectical premises depends on the adversary’s choice between two contradictories.”

A classification of two types was deducable given this statement.

True statement then becomes a fashioned statement. A human constructs a statement and was given a choice of the persons or the adversary’s. A prior as the relation of premise was the meaning. Adversary was the other human not necessarily understanding while demonstrative requires the a priori to be then adversary known. A dialect requires a prior knowledge and to require this was the distinction. A long sentence to demand the two humans to be required.

Sentence 5:

“But this will make no difference to the production of a syllogism in either case ; for both the demonstrator and the dialectician argue syllogistically after stating that something does of does not belong to something else.”

A set was created by the two classes and the frequent dialectician was to always demand the completion. “does or does not belong” then becomes a prior. A knowledge as the relation was the sets demonstration. A class.

Sentence 6:

“Therefore a syllogistic premises without qualification will be an affirmation or denial of something concerning something else in the way we have described; it will be demonstrative, if it is true and obtained through the first principles of its science; while a dialectical premises is the giving of a choice between two contradictories, when a man is proceeding by question, but when he is syllogizing it is the assertion of that which is apparent and generally admitted, as has been said in the Topics.”

A human must then read the sentence to the maximum extent and the two contradictories are the unknown a priori. A falsehood as the assertion then demands a choice of proceeding by common acceptance, and never set. One syllogism is science while the dialectical is of set never, making the dialectical assertion contradictory. Science was defined.

Science where the a priori was set. A class was to be admitted in implication as always in old Greek. Implication was the a priori while common users must not use this method as their a priori was not existent. A contradictory set was to never exist. It takes a few hours to decompose sentence 6.

Let it be reminded that science was inverted dialectical. A prior as implicated set caused two contradictories. It is a hard study.

Sentence 7:

“The nature then of a premises and the difference between syllogistic, demonstrative, and dialectical premises, may be taken as sufficiently defined by us in relation to our present need, but will be stated accurately in sequel.”

A science as defined above was to be us, the two humans linguistically communicating. And the syllogism as related to all premises was left to be inferred. Three kinds of premises occur while two syllogisms happen apon communicating. It must be studied exactly. A student must now defined syllogism.

Syllogism: A test of class where the truth was as experiment would allow. A truth where the set was to be allowed by experiment and not a meager statement as to the set’s existence was demanded by all syllogism. Syllogism is therefore a word inverted.

Inversion logically must be examined and the task was to allow sign such as a bare letter to deny the set. All set as elements were allowed in relation to implied existence and not simply declared existence.

Note: Old Greek theory one page 1 demands utter deep thought. Learning to reverse the word then invert all cases to test for a perfect formal syllogism was the apparent student.

I can only cringe at the paltry examination of the dialectician.