Wednesday, 21 September 2011

Logical Set-Up for a Pro-Palestinian Position

The logics as argument follows:

1. Israel has been followed in the past with negative results
2. Palestine* has not been followed (for positive results)
3. Palestine* has a suggestion to be followed or not (for positive results)
4. Israel must not be followed
5. Palestine* must be followed
6. One follows the Palestine* suggestion

Universe of Discourse, UD: Israelis, Palestinians, Results (and I guess the rest of the World)
I: Israelis
P: Palestinians
R: Results

Symbolic expression, under SD+:

1. | I -> ~R -----------------------------------A (Assumption)
2. | (~P -> ~R) V (P -> R) -------------------A
3. | ~(~P -> ~R) ------------------------------A
0. |----------------------------------------------------
4. | | ~P -> ~R --------------------------------A
0. | |----------------------------------------------------
5. | | ~(~P -> ~R) ----------------------------3 R
6. | | ~P -> ~R -------------------------------4 R
7. | ~(~P -> ~R) -----------------------------4-6 ~E (also ending injection, one step down again)
8. | (~P -> ~R) V (P -> R) -------------------2 R
9. | ~(~P -> ~R) -----------------------------7 R
0. |----------------------------------------------------
10.| P -> R ----------------------------------8-9 DS (Disjunctive Syllogism)


1. P -> R
2. P
3. P R (_R_eiteration)
4. R Condiitonal elimination

Palestine* is not Palestine yet, it's just a short for its people!

(I'm sorry for this, smarta**es, but you have been severely wrong here to make certain assumptions about this line that's now removed!!!)


  1. Sentential Derivation and the expanded set (SD+) offers the possibility for negating the unwanted part of the disjunction and making the move for the wanted one. The deduction is known as the Disjunctive Syllogism (DS)!

  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

  3. There are some who write "injection ejection" or something like that. There's a cool term for, I just can't remember it right now!

  4. 1. (I -> ~R) -> (P -> R)
    2. I -> ~R
    3. (I -> ~R) -> (P -> R) R
    4. P -> R 2,3 ->E (Cond. elimination)

    This solution yields the same, but lacks some description from above, but 2 arguments pro are stronger than only one! The logical implication should be clear, however!

  5. Description for 1. point in main argument: The Israeli (along with USA) have in great parts been responsible for 18 years of stalling. This is in part because of Palestinian development status, that is, they are poor and under hard pressure in ways more than one, esp. militarily, but also economically. When one could have expected a solution in 1993, it failed! Thus, this is a credible starting point for evaluating responsibility to either side!

  6. Editing has been made to remove an ambiguity that's been really insignificant and especially now when this is written! Cheers!

  7. 0s are placed to make it more aesthetically pleasing. And for the hard-liners, Palestine* (Palestine marked) is now consistently so! Good?

  8. I've come to the word, "discharge", as a follow-up to "...some who write "injection ejection" or something like..." So perhaps one can write "injection discharge" or simply "discharge" (of line #, by Fitch System)! Good?