Greg, The term "modern logic" is hopelessly confusing. Every decade there is a new modern logic. Anybody and her brother can concoct a new notation and call it "modern logic". Unfortunately, there are huge numbers of such notations and no systematic method for relating them. For the ISO Common Logic standard, we started with an ABSTRACT specification that has NO readable or writable notation of any kind. The standard itself specified three different readable and writable DIALECTS. But anybody who specifies any notation that can be mapped to and from the abstract specification can call it a dialect of Common Logic. In fact, it's very easy to specify an English-like dialect of first-order predicate calculus. All you need are 7 reserved words: and, or, not, if, then, some, every. This version is immediately readable by anybody who can read English. With LLM technology, It can also be translated to and from anybody's favorite notation, whatever they may call it. I agree with the importance of the six theories you listed below. Each of them can be specified with a few more key words added to the basic seven. Unfortunately, we made a mistake in specifying the ISO Common Logic standard: We did not include an English-like dialect in the official document. I strongly recommend that anybody who proposes any kind of logic include a translation to and from an English version that uses only those 7 key words for the base logic plus whatever key words are needed for the additions described below (and/or any additions for any branch of science and engineering). And by the way, there have been many versions of logic that do enable users to type whatever English assertions or questions that they prefer. Then the system can translate them to their preferred English-like version and ask the question: "Is this what you mean?" Those systems have been very user friendly. Unfortunately, they required a considerable amount of work to design them and to keep then user friendly. With the current LLM technology, it is much easier to implement the translation from arbitrary English to whatever official version of controlled English may be specified. And by the way, LLM technology can also map any natural language to and from a controlled dialect. There can be official dialects of French, German, Russian, Chinese, Arabic, Malaysian, Vietnamese, etc. And they would all be exactly compatible with their translations to whatever formal notation is the foundation. John ________________________________________ From: "gregsharp73" <gregsharp73(a)gmail.com> To further unpack my cryptic response to Paul’s understandable incredulity regarding the integration of Traditional and Modern Logics and to follow up on Alex’s request for an example of the formal notation used in Pattern Logic, I put together an article: https://patternslanguage.com/articles/f/unifying-logic-traditional-premises… I believe this article nicely closes the loop on where my interest lay in raising this question about Nicola’s last slide. I do see a means of unifying these various theories using the same toolbox of fixed patterns that I demonstrate in unifying Traditional and Modern Logic in the article. To sketch out an approach: 1. Theory of Parts (Mereology) à universal and partial quantifiers of pattern logic with mediation copulas 2. Theory of Unity and Plurality à generic quantifiers (individual and total) and copulas of pattern logic 3. Theory of Essence and Identity à general quantifiers and mediation copulas as explained in the article 4. Theory of Dependence à quantified monadic predicates of Modern Logic as explained in the article 5. Theory of Composition and Constitution à universal and partial quantifiers of pattern logic with union and overlap copulas 6. Theory of Properties and Qualities à quantified monadic predicates of Modern Logic as explained in the article These discoveries have been made in obscure and isolated labor over many years now and I would welcome collaboration as it has arrived at this point of so many different branching paths. Please contact me if you have an interest in walking any of them with me. Thanks, Greg