# The Game of Logic

Page 07

we should transfer it to the smaller Diagram thus,

```
-----------
|     |     |
|  1  |  0  |
|     |     |
-----------

and read it "all x' are y."

One is that, in every Proposition beginning with "some" or "all",
the ACTUAL EXISTENCE of the 'Subject' is asserted.  If, for instance,
I say "all misers are selfish," I mean that misers ACTUALLY EXIST.
If I wished to avoid making this assertion, and merely to state
the LAW that miserliness necessarily involves selfishness, I should
say "no misers are unselfish" which does not assert that any misers
exist at all, but merely that, if any DID exist, they WOULD be
selfish.

The other is that, when a Proposition begins with "some" or "no",
and contains more that two Attributes, these Attributes may be
re-arranged, and shifted from one Term to the other, "ad libitum."
For example, "some abc are def" may be re-arranged as "some bf are
acde," each being equivalent to "some Things are abcdef".  Again "No
wise old men are rash and reckless gamblers" may be re-arranged as
"No rash old gamblers are wise and reckless," each being equivalent
to "No men are wise old rash reckless gamblers."

2.  Syllogisms

Now suppose we divide our Universe of Things in three ways, with regard
to three different Attributes.  Out of these three Attributes, we
may make up three different couples (for instance, if they were a,
b, c, we might make up the three couples ab, ac, bc).  Also suppose
we have two Propositions given us, containing two of these three
couples, and that from them we can prove a third Proposition containing
the third couple.  (For example, if we divide our Universe for m,
x, and y; and if we have the two Propositions given us, "no m are
x'" and "all m' are y", containing the two couples mx and my, it
might be possible to prove from them a third Proposition, containing
x and y.)

In such a case we call the given Propositions 'THE PREMISSES', the
third one 'THE CONCLUSION' and the whole set 'A SYLLOGISM'.

Evidently, ONE of the Attributes must occur in both Premisses; or
else one must occur in ONE Premiss, and its CONTRADICTORY in the
other.

In the first case (when, for example, the Premisses are "some m
are x" and "no m are y'") the Term, which occurs twice, is called
'THE MIDDLE TERM', because it serves as a sort of link between the
other two Terms.

In the second case (when, for example, the Premisses are "no
m are x'" and "all m' are y") the two Terms, which contain these
contradictory Attributes, may be called 'THE MIDDLE TERMS'.

Thus, in the first case, the class of "m-Things" is the Middle
Term; and, in the second case, the two classes of "m-Things" and
"m'-Things" are the Middle Terms.

The Attribute, which occurs in the Middle Term or Terms, disappears
in the Conclusion, and is said to be "eliminated", which literally
means "turned out of doors".

Now let us try to draw a Conclusion from the two Premisses--

"Some new Cakes are unwholesome;
No nice Cakes are unwholesome."

In order to express them with counters, we need to divide Cakes in
THREE different ways, with regard to newness, to niceness, and to
wholesomeness.  For this we must use the larger Diagram, making x
mean "new", y "nice", and m "wholesome".  (Everything INSIDE the
central Square is supposed to have the attribute m, and everything
OUTSIDE it the attribute m', i.e. "not-m".)

You had better adopt the rule to make m mean the Attribute which
occurs in the MIDDLE Term or Terms.  (I have chosen m as the symbol,
because 'middle' begins with 'm'.)

Now, in representing the two Premisses, I prefer to begin with the
NEGATIVE one (the one beginning with "no"), because GREY counters
can always be placed with CERTAINTY, and will then help to fix the
position of the red counters, which are sometimes a little uncertain
where they will be most welcome.

Let us express, the "no nice Cakes are unwholesome (Cakes)", i.e.
"no y-Cakes are m'-(Cakes)".  This tells us that none of the Cakes
belonging to the y-half of the cupboard are in its m'-compartments
(i.e. the ones outside the central Square).  Hence the two compartments,
No. 9 and No. 15, are both 'EMPTY'; and we must place a grey counter
in EACH of them, thus:--

-----------
|0    |     |
|   --|--   |
|  |  |  |  |
|--|-----|--|
|  |  |  |  |
|   --|--   |
|0    |     |
-----------

We have now to express the other Premiss, namely, "some new Cakes
are unwholesome (Cakes)", i.e.  "some x-Cakes are m'-(Cakes)".  This
tells us that some of the Cakes in the x-half of the cupboard are
in its m'-compartments.  Hence ONE of the two compartments, No.
9 and No. 10, is 'occupied': and, as we are not told in WHICH of
these two compartments to place the red counter, the usual rule
would be to lay it on the division-line between them: but, in this
case, the other Premiss has settled the matter for us, by declaring
No. 9 to be EMPTY.  Hence the red counter has no choice, and MUST
go into No. 10, thus:--

-----------
|0    |    1|
|   --|--   |
|  |  |  |  |
|--|-----|--|
|  |  |  |  |
|   --|--   |
|0    |     |
-----------

```