Female logic



– Hello, I have problem with part number 710, I do not know, where to attach it back..

– part number 710?

– Yes, it felt out from my car..

– Sorry, I have no idea, what are you talking about.

– Oh, Jesus.. You, men, what Do you have? Is this auto service?

– Yes, but.. Could you send me the image of that part?

– Here is the picture!



The Female logic below is translation of the famous work by the great Russian mathematician Dmitrii Beklemishev . The female logic is interesting subject for the scientific research and therefore matches the main ideology of TORI. The logical construction cannot be subject of copyright; but, in order to avoid any misunderstanding, the author (Dmitrii Beklemishev) and the source should be attributed. For the commercial use of the text below, communicate the author.

The Third edition of the Russian version is available at Заметки о женской логике. The concepts by D.Beklemishev are not the only possible point of view on the subject. In 2013, the difference between male and female perception of bit only logics, but, in general, mathematics is considered also by J.M.Dechler and E.A.Burroughts with another approach, mathematics with women in mind is described .

Introduction
In our epoch, the accurate knowledge enters new and new areas. One such area - female logic. The rigorous presentation is still in its infancy. Normal "male" logic was that stage more than two thousand years ago, but the female logic still awaits for its Aristotle. Descendants have large and honorable task to create a systematic course of female logic, to fulfill its axiomatization, and to create computers that follow the woman logical schemes. While, the only these short notes are available.

The goal of these notes - to compensate, at least partially, the failure of the Nature, that deprived men the ability to use the female logic, so necessary in many situations.

One can foresee a reproach, that our presentation by itself is based on a woman's logic. Such a reproach is completely irrelevant: the requirement to present Aristotelian logic by the female logic would sound not better.

And, in general, why this is perceived as a reproach? It is based on mocking disdain philistine attitude to women's logic. This attitude is not too surprising: it is, unfortunately, a common reaction when encountering something alien and inaccessible. As well, at first, laughing naked natives, pointing fingers at the dressed (and armed) sailors of John Cook ...

As for the author, it treats this subject seriously and respectfully; much more seriously than it may seem at a cursory reading of this work.

Author on the basis of his own sad experience strongly recommends the beginners not to engage in conversations with women before to learn this guide. It is best to get some preliminary training in special courses on the subject. Listeners of such courses, in addition to basic knowledge, recommended exercises to increase lung capacity and strengthen the vocal cords. The relentless attention should be given general physical training and hardening of the body. The permanent medical supervision is also important.

General comments
Female logic always is applied to a dispute; this makes the difference from the male logics. This difference may be not the most important, but is clearly seen at the first look.

The Men's logic can be applied both to a dispute and to any abstract reasoning. Female logic is more specialized: apply in a narrower field of thinking, it gives results that are far superior to everything that Aristotle could have dreamed.

Man's logic deals with disputes arising from the fact that two humans, starting with the common premises, come to different conclusions. Due to the common unambiguous rules of deduction, one of them is right and the other makes ​​a logical error, and who is right and who is - no, you can find out, independently on personality of disputers.

The Female Logic applies to any disputes; so, it may happen that each of disputers is right. There is even a special term to describe this situation: "You are right in your own way." This situation, of course, can not take place if the inference rules are unambiguous. The words "you are right in your own way" should be understood as "applying the rules of inference as you do it, you'd be right," or "From your postulates you make the conclusion correctly, but I assume other postulates."

In the present state of science, we can not answer the question, who wins the dispute, based on the women's logic. However, this article, I hope, helps the future researchers to find the answer. First, consider the example.

Liza is six years old, Vania is four years old. Although they are pretty yang, they use the women's logic.
 * Liza. I'll go to Uncle Kolya, but I will not take you with me!
 * Vania. And I'll go without you, by my own!
 * Liza. And I'll tie you with a rope in the room.
 * Vania. I will tear the rope and go.
 * Liza. I'll lock the door!
 * Vania. And I will break the door!
 * Liza. And I'll make the iron door!
 * Vania. I get out of the window!
 * Liza. I close it with iron!
 * Vania. Then I brake the wall!
 * Liza. But I put you in the iron box!

Vania here in terms of female logic would argue, just go to another plane (see corresponding paragraph), but he has no skills to do it. He can only cry (what Liza wanted).

Here are some simple specific rules, which, in many cases, help you to guess, who wins the dispute, based on the female logic.

1. The statement left without objection, is proven. The reason why no objection followed, does no matter. For example, if you make generate with a large speed of 5-10 judgment, then you may expect some of them to be not be answered.

If the judgment is followed by some insulting, one responses for offense, not the judgment; in such a way, the judgment happens to be proven, unless the response is not stronger than the original offense. Hence it is clear that the strength of the arguments used must increase. Unfortunately, we are unable to examine this issue in depth. Leave your statement without an answer is possible, in time escaped from the room, or, at least, to their ears. The last gesture should be done clearly. If you are, say, pre-shut up ears with cotton, your companion will consider that its arguments before you came and went unanswered. And the argument will win it.

Above examples are enough to make up their idea of ​​logical deductions of this type.

2. That of the opponents, who got the last word, wins the whole dispute completely. For this reason, the objections are always directed against the last statement.

Indeed, if it is denied, it is enough to end the conversation.

But to do this can be difficult. The second reason that should focus exclusively on the last statement, is to deny that the penultimate sentence does not make sense: your opponent always can renounce it or distort it beyond recognition. No one can enter twice into the same river. Similarly, in a conversation with a lady one can not go back to what she said earlier.

3. In the female logic, every statement can be not only be disproved, but also rejected. Rejecting the statement, you admit it meaningless and ignored. If you rejected last statement companion, your penultimate sentence remains unanswered and thus proved. For example, the most solid arguments can be rejected with the words: "So what?".

In the next section we will try an example to show how the arguments can be rejected. Here we note only that the statements interlocutor based on obvious facts must be rejected, as can not be denied.

General and specific statements.
In the female logic, as in Aristotle, there are general and specific statements.

However, the rule that a general proposition can not be proved by a number of examples, but one example can refute the general statement, in the female elegiacs does not apply.

If a sample does not always fully proves the general proposition, the two examples prove it anyway. The greater part is enough with one example. Similarly, a counter-example does not refute, since it is only one, and one still says nothing nothing.

The laws of female logic are in conflict with the male point of view of logic, but it does not mean anything, they are both true.

Let us illustrate this in the following dialog.


 * Lilian. Since then, as I have for you got married, you do not you give me anything! (The total judgment.)
 * John. I'm sorry, dear, but for the First of May, I gave you a gallon of perfumes. (A counter-example.)

Then Lillian can choose among several options.

Option 1: Lillian. Just think, a lousy gallon of perfumes! Presented once a year and is still treat this as a merit! (Example rejected.)

Option 2: Lillian. Nothing you did not gave it you probably gave that perfume to some singer. Oh! this is just that you can do! (Example disproved.)

Option 3: Lillian. Nothing you did not gave away! But even if you give me every year some small thing, can it be compared with care of other husbands?! (Example is both rejected and refuted.)

In connection with these example, the well-known law of female logic should be mentioned, that any exception proves the rule. This law allows to reject a counter-example without thinking.

Turn of Cleopatra
The logical construction below is known as the "turn of Cleopatra", although used, of course, in the Stone Age. It is to require confirmation by example, and then blame the pettiness.

Let us see how is it applied in practice.


 * Lidia Ivanovna. How long you work for us, you're always rude!
 * Larissa. Well, when I talked rude to you, what's the matter?!
 * Lidia Ivanovna. Yesterday, when I sent you to the office, what did you say to me?
 * Larissa. What is it my business to run to the office! And you do not have the right to send me!
 * Lidia Ivanovna. Or Friday, when I opened the window ... Even if you had a cold - was it correct to talk so?
 * Larissa. Well, Lidia Ivanovna, you always carp with some little things that happened in past! There is absolutely no life with you!

Repeating of argument
In the men's logic, we are used to the fact that the probative value of an argument does not change when it is repeated. If the theorem is proved, no matter how many doubts arise, the repeat the proof eliminates them.

In the female logic, probative ability of the argument at the repeating changes by a complicated law. Often, it is growing, but sometimes catastrophically falls.

Repeating the argument, it should be every time to give him a new verbal expression. It is particularly important, that the insults and curses (which are essential in the logical deduction), are each time are fresh. If you do not follow this rule, you can be sure that after the second or third repetition of your argument is rejected, "Well, you just repeat the sam wrong thing!".

Only inexperienced beginners commit such a mistake.

We illustrate this with the scene below, performed (on the model of tragedies by Aeschylus) with two soloists and chorus.


 * Woman. My glasses! Oh, my glasses! They're stolen! What horrible pass!
 * Chorus of passengers. Look for herself, who needs to stall the glass?
 * Woman. Look at this guy! Look, what a view! Give me my glasses back!
 * Chorus of passengers. You think, that guy had take them from your gag?
 * Guy. I'm standing far from you, let this be my excuse!
 * Woman. Of course, he stole it! See how he looks!
 * Chorus. No, he was not, certainly he is standing far away!
 * Woman. He looks so horrible, sure that he may.
 * Chorus. So what? Maybe he took?
 * Woman. Of course, he did! He could use a hook!
 * Guy. I stayed far from you, and I did not approach!
 * Woman. Who else could steal? Of course, the thief!
 * Chorus. Give her the glasses, to end the conversation!
 * Guy. I stand away, and I did not approach!
 * Woman. Here's a thief, a pickpocket! Clearly, he stole it!
 * Guy. I stand away, and I did not approach!
 * Chorus. What to say! Repeats again the same pass!
 * Woman. Bring him to the police, that ass!
 * Chorus. To police! We'll confirm that he'd stole the glass!

Disputes, in which each party reiterates its arguments are called cyclic. Over time, the dynamic theory of cyclical dispute turns into a fascinating chapter of female logic, rich ergodic theorem and asymptotic estimates.

Quantitative estimates
Такие исследования, не относящиеся по существу к логике, обычно бывают тонкими и трудоемкими. Они сильно тормозят процесс рассуждения. Женская логика более гибка и не знает подобных затруднений. Признать или не признать данный цвет черным – это всецело определяется поставленной целью. quantitative estimates

Not so many estimates remain value "true" independently on the quantification; even in the man's logic. When a man who is trained logic says that the shoe is black, this man, as a rule, does not mean that the shoe absorbs all the incident beams on it. But, saying such a statement, the man feels obliged to define what he calls black.

Such studies are not related to the substance of logic, are usually thin and time consuming. They strongly inhibit the process of reasoning. The female logic is more flexible and does not know of such difficulties. Wether to recognize the color as "black" or not - it is entirely determined by the purpose.

Let us explain this with an example.
 * Raisa. Simon, you have such a terrible collar! Take off your shirt, I'll give it to the laundry!
 * Simon. She's still pretty clean, Raya. I just put it on yesterday.
 * Raisa. But look at the collar! He is absolutely black.

ten minutes later:
 * Aunt Sasha. Raisa Markovna, if you will give me another such well-worn shirt, I'll raise raise my price! My hands are warn-out until I wash them off!
 * Raisa. Semen Matveevich wore it for only one day. Yes, you look at the collar - it is absolutely white.

As an exercise the reader may guess, what temperature (in °C) has the "absolutely cold" tea: +40, +18, +4, 0, -273?

This section is devoted to one of the most important abilities of female logic – the transition to another plane. The idea of the transition is to change the subject of discussion in the most inexplicit way.

Of course, the new plane you should be chosen so that it becomes easier to prove your case. By doing this, you automatically win the whole controversy.

Transition to another plane
In the most primitive form of transition to another plane of the form of what the Romans called "quaternions terminorum" (substitution of concepts).

In a more developed form, Instead of some very controversial statements, one proves you with more brilliance - something obvious. Try to argue! You would have to go back to the things said very earilierly, which, as we have seen, is impossible.

It should be borne in mind that all the different methods to get another plane can not be reduced to the kinds of reasoning, which are described in Aristotelian logic as erroneous.

One example of the transition to another plane, we met already in dialogue Lidia Ivanovna and Larissa. Larissa has replaced discussion of the shape of its response at the office discussing the content of this answer. Here is another example.


 * Anna Ivanovna. Lieutenant Pronin not a lovelace!
 * Luba. Yesterday, I looked at him, he nearly an hour talking to the barmaid Nyurka!
 * Anna Ivanovna. Well, so what, just think! With Nyurka talked, and not an hour and five minutes, I also watched - and certainly a lovelace!

Luba, feeling the truth of Anna Ivanovna and the weakness of their arguments, turns the conversation in another plane, for example:


 * Luba. Just five minutes! Aunt Grunia had time to go get water and to gave it to the calf, and they were all standing.
 * Anna Ivanovna. They and a well nearby, and the calf did not finish to drink…
 * Anna does not give up, but the transition to another plane failed. Now the reputation of Lieutenant Pronin depends on the time the calf drinks.

Note that the plane in which the dispute (matter of the discussions) is sometimes changed very quickly. So quickly, that a man without special preparation cannot impossible to understand, what was going on. But the long-term observations and reflections reveal the nature of this phenomenon. The purpose of this dispute - to find out who is right and who is wrong in general, but not on any particular issue. Therefore the subject of the dispute is not argumentative for no interest and is easily lost.

So, for example, the most logical answer to the statement "... but in Bulgaria, Golden Sands, sand is twice as hot!" will be saying "But my husband and I were in the winter in Bakuriani, – there were only foreigners there!" The ability to move to another plane has an interesting consequence, namely: the proof should be no longer than one sentence.

Longer proves are not useful. Indeed, it is difficult to prevent the interlocutor to steer the conversation in another plane advantage of a pause in your reasoning.

Arguments of several phrases used when the source prevented you respond: confused, slow on the uptake, or is depending on you position. In the latter case, the logic dictates insert from time to time the phrase "Shut up when I'm talking to you!"

Syllogisms
One of the features of female logic - no syllogisms are allowed.

It shows not the weakness of the mental abilities of females, but the strength. This does not mean that a woman can not make conclusion from the two premises, but this means, that she knows, that the abilities of the interviewee to make this conclusion are not worse. If the conclusion could make the opponent happy, then you need without wasting time, denying herself. Since all of this is known in advance, syllogisms are not applied at all. If a man tries to use them, the lady should only pay attention to the fact that the premises should not be accepted unconditionally, but conditionally, saying, for example, "say" or something like that. Here's what it looks like in practice:


 * Ivan. Even if I drunk a little, the good men, friends, understand? – friends offered me some drink!
 * Tatiana. You're lying all the damned!
 * Ivan. At the pay day, do I bring you all?
 * Tatiana. Ok, let us say, all..
 * Ivan. Hence I have no money for the drink?
 * Tatiana. So, I wonder, where do you get money for alcohol.
 * Ivan. Those, who have no money, are invited by friends!

Here Tatiana, with her feminine insight, anticipates the conclusion about friends and"is to have friends and treated," and goes to the denial of parcels:
 * Tatiana. You brought only 60 rubles, and all your friends all alcoholics, I do not wish to see your drunk face!

It should be strongly emphasized that the need to make a conclusion from two premises, it must be done according to the rules of female logic. Indeed, consider for example the following sentence: "My friend A., all his friends and families are scoundrels and rascals." Of the two statements one could conclude, according to the rules man's logic, that the speaker himself - a scoundrel or rascal. In the women's logic of such a conclusion would be wrong, and any woman says such a sentence without any doubts.

Absolute
All the above confirms the ambiguity of the deduction in the female logics. Without the special preparation, a man cannot foresee, which of the possible conclusions should be chosen.

How do the women deal with it? The man's logic deals with statements that a may have value either "true" or "false". In order to distinguish the true statements from the false ones, men use the natural and sobrenatural (humanitarian) sciences, but since the Adam, did not advance much in this direction. The female logics qualify statements as "true", "false" and "not interesting". But every woman can easy and surely qualify each statements to one of these three categories. How do they do this? The fundamental discovery by the author is the introduction of the category of "absolute".

Obviously, the Absolute was used even by Eva, but that time, the concept was not formulated, and where was no attempts to understand the female logics in its theoretical aspect.

Absolute is set of statements used to test the other declarations in the following way: the declaration is "true", if it agrees with the Absolute; the declaration is "false", if it disagrees the Absolute; and the declaration is "not interesting", if it has nothing to do with the Absolute.

Usually the Absolute contains the statements, contradictive from the point of vie of the man's logic. From the point of view of the female logics, all the statements of Absolute are true.

Of course, each lady has her own absolute. This explains the meaning of the expression «Your logics is strange!». On the first look, one may think, that the speaker thinks, that everyone has his/her own logics. Indeed, she just rejects the absolute of the woman she is talking to.

The absolute is not stable. It can vary suddenly, abruptly and randomly. If the Absolute of some lady has significant, observable permanent part, then she can be called as lady with principles (with believes).

The notes above show, that the female logics cannot be interpreted as just a fussy logics. With all the respect to L.A.Zade and his followers, such an intent is not promising. Perhaps, the theory if fussy sets can be applied in a different way. It is seductive, to concede the Absolute as a fussy set; but here we'll not enter the special topics.

The action of Absolute can be demonstrated with the following dialogue:
 * Mrs.Mikhaleva. .. all this week she did not appear at home, do not know where and dragged! She walks who knows where. In addition, all at nights, she keeps noisy drinkings and dancings, noisy songs.. I could not sleep at night..
 * Police officer. But you said, Petrova did not appear at home..
 * Mrs.Mikhaleva. Why do you defend her? I called you not to defend her, she has many defenders, but to qualify her as hooligan..

Whould Mrs.Mikhaleva be not only practician, but also theoretician, she would declare that her Absolute includes the concept "Petrova does not work, but makes a hooliganism"

The contradiction mentioned by the police otter is important only for men. Within the female logics, there is no contradiction at all. too rude and blunt. The truth for women is something so fragile, so precarious, so versatile ...

Here is one example more:
 * Olga Petrovna: Misha! Come on! Who allowed you to play sokker? Look, what you're sweaty and dirty!
 * Misha. But all the guys playing soccer ...

Then Olga anticipates syllogism and proceeds to deny the result, because parcels can not be denied.
 * Olga Petrovna. And if they will steal, you're going too, right?

The Absolute of Olga Petrovna includes the statement "One should not steal", and uses a fictional example where all the kids go out of the yard together to steal, to reject the reasoning that in her example would lead to a contradiction with the absolute.

The last remark of Olga Petrovna absurdity underlying proposals paralyzing thought of Misha, and he does not know about the only reasonable objection that he was not referring to "what do all you can and I," and "all you can, you can, and I ". As a result, the last remark is, without objection, that solves the problem.

We use the concept of the absolute to find out what you can convince a woman, and what is not.

Some believe that a woman can not be convinced of anything, while others believe that women are easily suggestible. For us, you should already be obvious that it is easy to convince the woman in saying that has no merit. And we cannot convince her saying anything contrary to her Absolute, just as it is impossible to convince the sane man, that from the fact that each herring - the fish, it follows that each fish - herring. It is not logical, and only extraneous considerations may make it temporarily verbally agree.

How to talk to men?
The art, mentioned in the tittle, is necessary to every woman, and each woman learns it; some of them at the age of 3 years. I do not know, if any male could get this art . At least, such a men are so rare, as genius scientists or painters.

However, these notes do not pretend for the sufficient (door for the initial) description of the subject. But some considerations are suggested below.

Your female logic come to his male logic as the key to the lock, if you force him to accept the validity of the necessary dispute suggestions from your absolute. Conversely, if this can not be done, you should stop talking. I almost wrote "admit defeat", but this is something that can not ever do. In the latter case the worst should be recognized that the result of a conversation characterizes your buddy with a bad hand, "it is absolutely impossible to talk to." This clarifies the meaning incomprehensible to the uninitiated phrase you often hear: "I talked to him for two hours ... With him it is impossible to talk! ".

Your task is simplified, if the men do not know about the absolute, but respect logic and easy to agree with the fact that some things may follows logically from somewhere, not caring particularly about the way of the deduction. It is not necessary for a long time to explain that the Absolute should be offered direfully and gradually. Over-vise, the men all react in a strange way, and it is difficult to guess, what to expect from them.

Thus, the presence of contradictions within the absolute, too quick to change, or other nonsense can ruin the whole thing.

Consider the following dialogue.
 * Nelly. Oh, my pet, I am now quite accidentally went to the GUM, they sold THAT A CHOOSES ... and for only 50 doubloons!
 * Sergey. Only 50? And coal for the winter, we buy what we do?

(So ​​much for the vaunted man's logic, I told him about shoes, and he told me about coal. Quite out of place!)
 * Nelly. Yes, I know you always feel sorry for me money, and had no intention of buying them. But you listen to what shoes! Everything is gray, and here here, in the front, near the toe - beige! (Offering his absolute, sometimes it is not harmful to demonstrate her leg.)
 * Sergey. And how did you come to the GUM? (Here we go again, Yes it is impossible to talk! "Simple", but not "perfect", fortunately.)
 * Nelly. And by the way, you have no decent for winter warm boots. You can not fix those that you wore last year!
 * Sergey. Yes, I suppose I have no need to repair them. (Agree, accept ...)
 * Nelly. And I also have nothing for winter..
 * Sergey. Indeed? Really?
 * Nelly. Yes, of course I will go barefoot at all, and he does not want to repair his own shoes. (Old-Spanish gambit.)
 * Sergey. No, Nelly, but I'm ... you are so...
 * Nelly. This is you, always! So, it means that both of us for the winter need new shoes.
 * Sergey. Well, I can fix my boots.
 * Nelly. Do as you think. You always have your own way. But I believe we must first put on ourself, and then to think about the coal.
 * Sergey. Yes, probably ... (Here the Pet founds and accepts the absolute. Continue to provide the imagination of the reader.)
 * It is very convenient to separate the imposition of absolute from reasoning. Sometimes it is enough just to impose the absolute.

Men can not be denied in a certain smartness, simplicity, and they know it for themselves. I do not give examples. Each of the readers undoubtedly have heard phrases like the following: "I'll in no way convincing. Do as you know. Man must always decide. I just want to explain to you how things are going, because you're just not in the know."

The world is old, and the logics is eternal. You will no doubt again hear anything like that. But now at least you know what it means.

Spread of female logics
The female logics described above is not an exclusive attribute and tool of women; such an illusion should be qualified as a kind of sexism.

Many male humans often shot very similar behaviour. 2015.05.12, Andy Borowitz reports the growth of population of the new Strain of Fact-Resistant Humans with such a behaviour. They are virtually immune to any form of verifiable knowledge, leaving scientists at a loss as to how to combat them. .

Being enable to beat the female logics, the scientists should at least try to understand it. By itself, it is interesting object of investigation. Publication by Andy Borowitz indicates the special importance of understanding of female logics, as it spread may dominate, and completely suppress all other kind of the human knowledge, including the classical logics and, in general all kinds of science.

Keywords
Demagogy, Dmitrii Beklemishev, Logics, Motivated reasoning