You have made mistakes here. There is no E proposition that states All s are not p. If you knew how to translate correctly into standard categorical form the proposition All s is not p = Some s is not p. There is no such thing as All . . . . are not. Obverse for a universal does not use NOT in the form at all. The prefix NON is used. You may think it is the same thing but you would be wrong again. Non is not interchangeable with NOT like most people think. The obverse of All s is p is No s is non-p. THERE IS NO NOT there! Obvert an I proposition Some s is p is Some is non-p. Compare some s is non p to some s is NOT p. Can you convert the I proposition? Some a are non b = some non-b are a! You cannot maintain truth if you convert some a are not b. One side can be true while the other is false. Some mammals are non human beings converted = some non human beings are mammals where both statement remain true. Compare that to the O statement: Some mammals are not aquatic animals converted = some aquatic animals are not mammals. The second statement is NOT TRUE but the first IS TRUE. The conversion goes from true to false. Thus non and NOT are not the same! Sometimes they overlap but it is not ALL. Again NOT all = some . . . are not . . . !
The rule of conversion, just like all types of obversion, is to restate the proposition without changing the meaning. If you convert a true proposition into false, that means you violate a rule.
If you may correct me, please use a reference. I suggest the use of Aristotle's work. So that I could reply properly. www.pdfdrive.com/the-organon-or-logical-treatises-of-aristotle-d35540309.html
Some people claim that 'All S is not P' is not a standard form categorical proposition because it is ambiguous, but I don't agree. There is no way it could be interpreted as an 'I Proposition'.
@@oliverperater3571 The rule of conversion is limited to only E type propositions and I type propositions that are 100 reliable. O type propositions cannot be converted with 100 % accuracy. You will be lucky to get two true propositions. The same goes for A type propositions: it is called conversion by limitation. Let me demonstrate these: If we begin with the proposition All apples are fruits we clearly cannot just switch the subject and predicates as All fruits are apples. This would mean we began with a true proposition and resulted in a FALSE proposition. To make All apples are fruits VALID using conversion we need to change the QUANTIFIER to SOME. Thus we convert All apples are fruits to SOME fruits are apples! Now we have to true propositions. We can also see that an O type proposition Some human beings are not women does not convert directly as Some women are not human beings. the conversion would be blatantly false. E and I type propositions convert without a change in meaning 100%. As a source I would recommend the Logic texts by Patrick Hurley or older texts by Irving Copi and Carl Cohen. You can look at any edition to get this information. Many improvements to deductive reasoning since the original texts of Aristotle. After the death of Aristotle for instance the fourth figure was recognized for instance. Many medieval logicians added to the knowledge of inferences. A modern version of this is called Aristotelian Syllogistic (it combines categorical syllogisms and some set theory to a formal proof system) for example.
@@oliverperater3571 I think you have me wrong there. ALL S is NOT P would not be an I proposition. I claim ALL s is not P can be translated as EITHER NO s is p and Some s is NOT p. This is the reason for ALL s is NOT p being ambiguous. Do you still disagree??
