I respectfully disagree. Logic is the only deductive science. Mathematics is the result of logical reasoning, not the use of logic reasoning. Logical reasoning existed before a mathematical formula could be established. A mathematician is not necessarily a logistician, however, a logistician must be a mathematician lest their logic be flawed or at least limited. And, of what value is a logistician who confines their logic to dilemmas other than math? To clarify, there are three forms of logic, 1.) simple logic, 2.) applied logic and 3.) pure logic. Simple logic is the observation of two or more events and drawing a conclusion. Applied logic is allowing for debate as the reality of the conclusion of simple logic. Pure logic ends all debate. As an example I have provided some simple logic contained within this web site as follows;

"In how many ways do nothing? (emphasis added question, may I assume "one can" is transposed, can one?)A mathematical answer to this is just one: 0!=1. Reasoning, There is just one way to do nothing so that 0!=1. However, the result of this activity is nothing or, in math parlance, 0." (source, Alexander Permutations Page)

The solution 0!=1 is simple logic. Using applied logic the answer is 0! = infinity. Pure logic dictates the answer is 0!=0.

My question for Alexander is this; if I provide you with an acceptable and approved solution to my statement will you make me a chartered member. And just to sweeten the pot using pure logic I will give you two mathematical equations; a.) nothing = everything and b.) everything = nothing. In a.) what does = equal, and in b.) what does = equal?

thebobguy

There is probably more disagreement of what the science of logic is than about what mathematics is. As you indicate later on, there several logics out there. It's entirely unclear which, if any, of them is deductive.

>Mathematics is the result of logical reasoning, not
>the use of logic reasoning.

Mathematics is mostly a result of inspiration.

>Logical reasoning existed before
>a mathematical formula could be established.

Is mathematics about formulas? (Or should I write "formulae"?)

>A mathematician
>is not necessarily a logistician, however, a logistician
>must be a mathematician

Well, there are too many examples to the contrary.

>lest their logic be flawed or at
>least limited. And, of what value is a logistician who
>confines their logic to dilemmas other than math?

Of what value are values in this context?

>To
>clarify, there are three forms of logic, 1.) simple logic,
>2.) applied logic and 3.) pure logic. Simple logic is the
>observation of two or more events and drawing a conclusion.
>Applied logic is allowing for debate as the reality of the
>conclusion of simple logic. Pure logic ends all debate.

Are the latter two allow for drawing conclusions, or just for an increasing measure of debate?

>As
>an example I have provided some simple logic contained
>within this web site as follows;
>
>"In how many ways do nothing? (emphasis added
>question, may I assume "one can" is transposed, can one?)

Thank you for that. Sincerely ...

>The solution 0!=1 is simple logic. Using applied logic the
>answer is 0! = infinity.

This is certainly debatable.

Pure logic dictates the answer is
>0!=0.

Even more debatable.

>My question for Alexander is this; if I provide you with an
>acceptable and approved solution to my statement

Some of my remarks in the foregoing have been posted in the form of questions. Do not misread that: I do not expect the answers.

>will you
>make me a chartered member.

Logically: what good may come out of that?

>And just to sweeten the pot
>using pure logic I will give you two mathematical equations;
>a.) nothing = everything and b.) everything = nothing. In
>a.) what does = equal, and in b.) what does = equal?

You can't spoil what does not make sense.

Best,
Alexander Bogomolny

Good job Bob, your post has just given Alex another example of "just one way to do nothing". And I do not blame him for not wanting you to answer him. Nothing = everything, just where do you come up with that kind of drivel.