14 May '15 10:367 edits

I am writing a book (with intent to publish ) about a system of logic I am developing.

I have already defined the central “axiom” of my whole system of logic and named it and I have named it the “entropic axiom”.

From that axiom, I have deduced certain useful conclusions that are useful because they, in turn, rather like the entropic axiom, can be used as a premise for further deductions leading to may other useful conclusions. The problem is, I want to give those conclusions that can be very often used as a premise for further deductions and conclusions reasonably short specific NAMES so that I don't have to extremely tediously explain them over and over again from scratch each and every time I want to refer to them in my book. I have a very large number of them to name and see a need to find a systematic and consistent method of naming them else what we will have is totally unacceptable total chaos.

Now, I understand that an “axiom” is a premise for a starting point for a deduction from which you derive conclusions. But, still, would it really be an abuse in terminology of formal logic to call these conclusions from my “entropic axiom” to call same/all of them: something - “axiom”? I am, for example, very tempted to call a particular one I am working on right at this very moment in my book the “clone median axiom” which is deduced from the entropic axiom (by an extremely long complicated series of deductions ) but I am rather concerned that I might be severely criticized for doing so because I am not sure if that is really allowed in formal logic.

Whether I am allowed to do that or not, is there a special technical/conventional word that I could use to help name a conclusion from an axiom that can be or is used as a premise for further deductions? So I can name them; something-“X” where X is whatever that word is?

I have already defined the central “axiom” of my whole system of logic and named it and I have named it the “entropic axiom”.

From that axiom, I have deduced certain useful conclusions that are useful because they, in turn, rather like the entropic axiom, can be used as a premise for further deductions leading to may other useful conclusions. The problem is, I want to give those conclusions that can be very often used as a premise for further deductions and conclusions reasonably short specific NAMES so that I don't have to extremely tediously explain them over and over again from scratch each and every time I want to refer to them in my book. I have a very large number of them to name and see a need to find a systematic and consistent method of naming them else what we will have is totally unacceptable total chaos.

Now, I understand that an “axiom” is a premise for a starting point for a deduction from which you derive conclusions. But, still, would it really be an abuse in terminology of formal logic to call these conclusions from my “entropic axiom” to call same/all of them: something - “axiom”? I am, for example, very tempted to call a particular one I am working on right at this very moment in my book the “clone median axiom” which is deduced from the entropic axiom (by an extremely long complicated series of deductions ) but I am rather concerned that I might be severely criticized for doing so because I am not sure if that is really allowed in formal logic.

Whether I am allowed to do that or not, is there a special technical/conventional word that I could use to help name a conclusion from an axiom that can be or is used as a premise for further deductions? So I can name them; something-“X” where X is whatever that word is?