why would a logical argument be worthy
of an adjective?

no real reason:

propositions are a set of premises,

which allow, set premises
to suit a proposition,

but prepositions are
are not a set of premises,
they are: "prerequisites"

well... take away the prefix
pre-
and then study "logic"
on the grounds of what
is left...

         -requisite...
ideal...

       -mise...

hmm, so how does the thesaurus
overcome
the mathematician?
pre-requisite is a tautological
complex: implying?

what is prior is also
a requisite...
hence a pre-prerequisite...

premise?
the same meaning
(or prerequisite)
but said "meaning"...
truth? contra good?

these days "the" good
is precisely "that",
i.e. a "good"...
it's neither good or,
or nor good:
worth as much as
a testimony to
interrogate, "evil"...

good isn't good is good,
evil isn't evil is evil,
truth:
a regurgitation of facts,
"made to feel"
claustrophobic...
or... some other adjective...

the Hoover dam:
is not a metaphor,
but the state of affairs
that is the 21st century
in its infancy
in having to inherit
the 20th century...

the 20th century didn't exactly
culminate in a zenith
with the atomic bomb...
but...
Oppenheimer...
citing the Hindu poetic
prophesy:

   jetzt ich bin werden
tod; die zerstörer von
                  welten...

i assure you:
give a mathematician
a thesaurus
is equivalent to
giving a ******* addict
a ******* toothpick
to requisite with
a missing pre-
toward a snort...

i.e.:
isn't a prerequisite
a premise?

if that is the case...
or isn't...
what is the entomological
basis for the synonym
with the prefix pre-
to associate an "anomaly"
of -requisite
and -mise?

mathematics lacks
nuance,
or at least there's no need
for nuance
to be grounded in
what is regarded
as: ultimatum:

true / false...

         beyond good & evil,
there is only
the good is true /
the good is false &
evil is true / evil is false...

but...

  why is good,
given the predicate
of the...
the definite article?

in casual expressions...
the good & evil...
well...

     there's God & the devil...
there is never
an "abstract" reference
point in "a" good,
or an "evil"...

the good and God,
"contra"
evil and the devil...

            borrow...
i look upon mathematical
strict rubric and
extract two letters,
like Socrates did in
Plato's theaetetus...

i see:
  the g(o)od and God,
  evil and the (d)evil...

  DO...

broken baron of the hunch
upon the wheel of
the recitation
of the last compensation
of thought:
dislodged from being
and made to
"repent",
in the form of confession...

typos plague elaborating
logical statements
in rigid rubrics...

coincidentally:
http://www.bu.edu/linguistics/UG/course/lx502/_docs/lx502-propositional%20logic.pdf

2.

if φ
is a wff,

3.
   ¬φ
is a wff (well-formed formula)

a negation is as "true"
as an affirmation...

4.
if φ and ψ
are wff, then (φ ∧ ψ),
(φ ∨ ψ), (φ → ψ),
(φ ↔ ψ) are wffs

5. nothing is a wff...

wait a minute...
why do "we" need for the proof
at point 5.?

weren't we dealing with
φ and ¬φ begin with?
so where does ψ fit into all of this,
"logic"?!

what is ψ?!
typo?
if ∧ = conjunction,
∨ = disjunction
→ = implication
↔ = equivalence...

the **** is ψ doing in place
of ¬φ?!

yeah, i might be drunk,
but i still have some screws
to count as involved
in my head being intact...

(φ ∧ ¬φ),
(φ ∨ ¬φ, (φ → ¬φ),
(φ ↔ ¬φ)

are more accurate
statements of "logic"
than

(φ ∧ ψ),
(φ ∨ ψ), (φ → ψ),
(φ ↔ ψ)

conjunction:
   2 events existing together
in a contradiction

disjunction:
two clear alternatives...

φ & ψ are not alternatives,
in such that
  only ¬φ is the only alternative
of φ, whereby ψ could
be presumed to be a
covert alternative: snyonym of φ...

the same logical conclusion
comes within the confines
of ¬φ, φ within the term implication
and equivalence...

but how the **** does
ψ fit into this?

nope... sorry... Picasso makes
more sense right about now...
honest to God,
or a gyrating ***** i'd
prefer to a slug of kalimotxo
down my throat:

look at me...
i too can regurgitate crap
in an alley while *******,
and i don't have to exactly
call it a university publication!

please! please!
find me a point where ψ
is worth the logical argument
in this university paper...
i can't find it!

   i hope it's a ******* typo...
but i doubt it;
i'd love to claim that
i made some purposive
typos of my own...