Changes

Following the logical rules of predicates, there is no reason to say that denial (4) is contradictory or meaningless  and therefore the neurologist (unlike the dentist) would not seem to have the logical tools to confirm his conclusion.

Following the logical rules of predicates, there is no reason to say that denial (4) is contradictory or meaningless  and therefore the neurologist (unlike the dentist) would not seem to have the logical tools to confirm his conclusion.

[[File:Question 2.jpg|sinistra|100x100px]]{{q2|then the dentist triumphs!|it's not for sure}}

{{q4|then the dentist triumphs!|it's not for sure}}

 

===Compatibility and incompatibility of the statements===

===Compatibility and incompatibility of the statements===

The complication lies in the fact that the dentist will present a series of statements as clinical reports such as the stratigraphy and CT of the TMJ that indicate an anatomical flattening of the joint, axiography of the condylar traces with a reduction in kinematic convexity and a tracing EMG interference pattern in which an asymmetrical pattern on the masseters is highlighted. These are assertions that can easily be considered a contributing cause of the damage to the Temporomandibular Joint and, therefore, responsible for the 'Orofacial pain'.

The complication lies in the fact that the dentist will present a series of statements as clinical reports such as the stratigraphy and CT of the TMJ that indicate an anatomical flattening of the joint, axiography of the condylar traces with a reduction in kinematic convexity and a tracing EMG interference pattern in which an asymmetrical pattern on the masseters is highlighted. These are assertions that can easily be considered a contributing cause of the damage to the Temporomandibular Joint and, therefore, responsible for the 'Orofacial pain'.

Well, all of ''these statements seem coherent'' with the sentence <math>\Im</math> initially described, whereby the dentist colleague feels justified in saying that the set of sentences <math>\Im</math>, and a number <math>n\geq1</math> of other assertions or clinical data <math>(a_1,a_2,.....a_n)</math>are logically compatible as the union between them <math>\Im\cup\{a_1,a_2.....a_n\}</math> it is coherent.

Well, all of ''these statements seem coherent'' with the sentence <math>\Im</math> initially described, whereby the dentist colleague feels justified in saying that the set of sentences <math>\Im</math>, and a number <math>n\geq1</math> of other assertions or clinical data <math>(a_1,a_2,.....a_n)</math>are logically compatible as the union between them <math>\Im\cup\{a_1,a_2.....a_n\}</math> it is coherent.

[[File:Question 2.jpg|sinistra|100x100px]]{{q2|Following the logic of classical language, the dentist is right!|It would seem! but be careful, only in own dental context!}}This statement is so true that the <math>P-value</math> could be infinitely extended enough to have <math>\alpha=0</math> that corrisponde in an infinite significance as long as it remains limited in its context without, however, meaning anything from a clinical point of view in other contexts as neurologist one.

{{q4|Following the logic of classical language, the dentist is right!|It would seem! but be careful, only in own dental context!}}

This statement is so true that the <math>P-value</math> could be infinitely extended enough to have <math>\alpha=0</math> that corrisponde in an infinite significance as long as it remains limited in its context without, however, meaning anything from a clinical point of view in other contexts as neurologist one.

==Final considerations==

==Final considerations==