# The working of Laws of logic on informal reasoning

As a mathematics learner, I can connect the laws of logic with the deductive type (formal logic) of reasoning, but I cannot sink those fundamental laws with the informal sense; however, induction and abduction are subjected to logical validation. How can we explain things explicitly?

• Not very clear... Deductive reasoning is used when we deduce conclusions from premises; how can we know the premises? In mathematics, they are axioms; in "everyday" informal reasoning, we have to rely on induction/abduction. Jun 28 at 10:04
• Explain what things explicity?? see philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/91633/… Jun 28 at 10:56
• As a math learner you are learning a specific topic called mathematical logic. In philosophy there are other things available. This causes so much confusion where people think there is something called logic. No there are different types of logic. They are not all identical or universal. So many concepts in mathematics do NOT match in the context of the same terminology. That is because mathematics has used identical words and reinvented stuff. So for that reason philosophy & mathematics will be at odds forever. You can research the difference between math & philosophy teaching reasoning. Jun 28 at 16:38
• The three fundamental laws are the principle of identity, law of excluded middle, and the law of non contradiction. People much of the time have no idea what those concepts really mean. The principle of identity means if two argument forms are identical they must hold the same truth value. The law of excluded middle says propositions --not sentences or statements-- must be either true or false once the details are expressed. The law of noncotradiction says no proposition can be simultaneously true & false. Jun 28 at 16:40