The article I pointed to describes "logic." I had assumed that you didn't really mean to say "symbolic logic" in your original response. For one thing, it's unrelated to algebra except in the sense that it takes a mathematical form; for another, it's useless for anyone who isn't interested in following some of the dead-ends that the 20th-century analytic philosophers ran down. I hope you don't insist that your kid learn symbolic logic unless he's really fascinated by it. It certainly won't help him employ anyone. If you want him to learn formal deduction, try Aristotle's syllogisms. They're useful.
It does not. It describes "informal logic" which is a philosophical term. We're not having a philosophical discussion. We're having a mathematical one. I Fucking Said "Symbolic logic." No for every fucking reason in my original post. The fact that you think "symbolic logic" and "informal logic" are the same thing is a strong indicator that not only do you need to focus on your rhetoric, you need to retake algebra.I hope you don't insist that your kid learn symbolic logic unless he's really fascinated by it.
Well, the reason you Said "Symbolic logic." is because you don't know what you're talking about. Here's symbolic logic: [(p ⊃ q) ∧ (q ⊃ r)] ⊃ (p ⊃ r). And here's algebra: (x² + y²)² = (x² - y²)² + (2xy)² They are only vaguely related. You can't reasonably expect anyone to learn about one from being taught the other. And both are of limited utility if what you want is to learn to reason.Fucking