Difference between revisions of "La lógica del lenguaje clásico"

{{transl}}

La lógica clásica será discutida en este capítulo. En la primera parte se ilustrará el formalismo matemático y las reglas que lo componen. En la segunda parte, se dará un ejemplo clínico para evaluar su eficacia en la determinación de un diagnóstico.  

En conclusión, es evidente que una lógica clásica del lenguaje, que tiene un enfoque extremadamente dicotómico (o algo es blanco, o es negro), no puede describir los múltiples matices que tienen las situaciones clínicas reales.

Como pronto veremos, este artículo mostrará que la lógica clásica carece de la precisión necesaria, obligándonos a mejorarla con otro tipo de lenguajes lógicos.{{ArtBy|

Nos separamos en el capítulo anterior sobre la 'Lógica del lenguaje médico' en un intento de desviar la atención del síntoma o signo clínico al lenguaje de máquina encriptado para lo cual, los argumentos de Donald E Stanley, Daniel G Campos y Pat Croskerry son bienvenidos pero conectado al tiempo <math>t_n</math> como portador de información (anticipación del síntoma) y al mensaje como lenguaje de máquina y no como lenguaje no verbal).<ref>{{Cite book  

==Mathematical formalism==

In this chapter, we will reconsider the clinical case of the unfortunate Mary Poppins suffering from Orofacial Pain for more than 10 years to which her dentist diagnosed a 'Temporomandibular Disorders' (TMDs) or rather Orofacial Pain from TMDs. To better understand why the exact diagnostic formulation remains complex with a Logic of Classical Language, we should understand the concept on which the philosophy of classical language is based with a brief introduction to the topic.

===Propositions===

Classical logic is based on propositions. It is often said that a proposition is a sentence that asks whether the proposition is true or false. Indeed, a proposition in mathematics is usually either true or false, but this is obviously a little too vague to be a definition. It can be taken, at best, as a warning: if a sentence, expressed in common language, makes no sense to ask whether it is true or false, it will not be a proposition but something else.

It can be argued whether or not common language sentences are propositions as in many cases it is not often evident if a certain statement is true or false.

''Fortunately, mathematical propositions, if well expressed, do not show such ambiguities’.''

Simpler propositions can be combined with each other to form new, more complex propositions. This occurs with the help of operators called ''logical operators'' and quantifying connectives which can be reduced to the following<ref><!--68-->For the sake of simplicity of exposition and reading, we will deal in this chapter with the ''symbol of belonging'', the ''symbol of consequence'' and the "''such that''" as if they were quantifiers and connectives of propositions in classical logic.<br><!--69-->Strictly speaking, within classical logic they should not be treated as such, but even if we do, this does not absolutely change the meaning of the speech and no inconsistencies of any kind are created.</ref>:

#''Conjunction'', which is indicated by the symbol <math>\land</math>  (and):

#''Disjunction'', which is indicated by the symbol <math>\lor</math> (or):

#''Negation'', which is indicated by the symbol <math>\urcorner</math>  (not):

#''Implication'', which is indicated by the symbol <math>\Rightarrow</math> (if ... then):

#''Consequence'', which is indicated by the symbol <math>\vdash</math> (is a partition of..):

#''Universal quantifier'', which is indicated by the symbol <math>\forall</math> (for all):

#''Demonstration'', which is indicated by the symbol <math>\mid</math> (such that): and

#''Membership'', which is indicated by the symbol <math>\in</math> (is an element of) or by the symbol <math>\not\in</math> (is not an element of):

===Demonstration by absurdity===

Furthermore, in classical logic there is a principle called the <u>excluded third</u> which declares that a sentence that cannot be false must be taken as true since there is no third possibility.

Suppose we need to prove that the proposition <math>p</math> is true. The procedure consists in showing that the assumption that <math>p</math> is false leads to a logical contradiction. Thus the proposition <math>p</math> cannot be false, and therefore, according to the law of the excluded third, it must be true. This method of demonstration is called ''demonstration by absurdity''<ref>{{Cite book  

===Predicates===

What we have briefly described so far is the logic of propositions. A proposition asserts something about specific mathematical objects such as: '2 is greater than 1, so 1 is less than 2' or 'a square has no 5 sides then a square is not a pentagon'. Many times, however, the mathematical statements concern not the single object, but generic objects of a set such as: '''<math>X</math>'' are taller than 2 meters' where ''<math>X</math>'' denotes a generic group (for example all volleyball players). In this case we speak of predicates.

Intuitively, a predicate is a sentence concerning a group of elements (which in our medical case will be the patients) and which states something about them.{{q4|<!--99-->Then poor Mary Poppins is a TMD patient or she is not!|<!--100-->let's see what Classical Language Logic tells us}}

In addition to the confirmations derived from the logic of medical language discussed in the previous chapter, the dentist colleague acquires other instrumental data that allow him to confirm his diagnosis. The latter tests concern the analysis of the axiographic traces by using a customized functional paraocclusal clutch which allow the visualization and quantification of the condylar traces in masticatory functions. As can be seen from Figure 4 the flattening of the condylar traces on the right side both in the mediotrusive masticatory kinetics (green colour) and the opening and protrusion cycles (gray colour) confirm the anatomical and functional flattening of the right TMJ in the dynamics chewing. In addition to the axiography, the colleague performs a surface electromyography on the masseters (Fig. 6) asking the patient to exert  the maximum of his muscles force. This type of electromyographic analysis is called "EMG Interferential Pattern" due to the high frequency content of the spikes that undergo phase interference. In fact, Figure 6 shows an asymmetry in the recruitment of the motor units of the right masseter (upper trace) compared to those of the left masseter (lower trace).<ref>{{cite book