The problem with the computerized logical systems which I have used prior to today, is this. With almost perfect consistency, the underlying goal of the logic in popular computer systems is to assemble a mechanism to control the flow of change in the system. These systems are imperative in nature.
Imperative systems direct the actions which a computer program performs. They are perhaps the most common and practical systems in use today. Less common, though ultimately no less practical, are logical systems that evaluate the truth of certain logical arguments. Telling a computer how to perform certain functions is useful, but dangerous if the reasoning behind our commands is flawed.
So, I'm interested in building systems that can provide a means to analyse our logics as well as to execute them. That's what I'm trying to build with Arete. However, the effort requires visible public progress as an Open Source project before I can get some of the needed infrastructure to continue more advanced development. This requires an iterative approach to building the platform.
The problem with this iterative approach is that there is scant and often contradictory literature to help me distinguish the two types of logic listed above. Often terms are used interchangeably between the two types of logic to describe what are essentially different things. Theorems, premises, antecedents, consequents, hypotheses, sentences, clauses, instructions, protasis, sumperasma, arguments. Logical literature today is a mixed bag of ambiguity and industry buzz-words.
So, I'm trying today to come to terms, to fashion an ontology I can use moving forward in development. It is fun but demanding work, and I've not yet eaten. I think I should see to that.