Abstract

In this paper, the vertical aspect of that "he" "this" and has been doing debate science in ancient China were variable, and continues to this day, now some people think that "either" is the formal logic of the two-valued logic, and "is also getting behind He "is the dialectical areas of study; and from the horizontal aspects of Greek logic, due out in India compared to the early days that logically made ​​in natural language variables. Debate science in ancient China were more variable in the use of pronouns pronouns, that they learn the Chinese names of variables debate, because they change the same items in the following aspects: First, the same location. Second, the meaning is uncertain, have variability. Third, can replace people or things. Fourth, is to "discern the similarities and differences" and said the same differences. Fifth, in the natural language for the variables are the same. But "He", "this" and so easy to mix with natural language, we can only belong to the primary variables. This debate is not only that the Chinese were learning a variable, and certainly there are constant. Composite proposition in the modern equivalent of logic, conjunction, disjunction, implication, denied five constant debate in the Chinese study were used in both works, "he", "this" use of these pronouns constant banded together and they are as variable evidence to the contrary exists. So you can even say the symbol does not mean that the West did not use variables, and the combination of natural language does not mean there is no form. This article would like to explore the notions of "bi" and "ci" as changeable items in the ancient Chinese philosophy exemplified in the "School of Names". In modern times, "if not A, then B " is taken as formal logic and" Both A and B " is a category of dialectical logic. From another perspective, in comparing Greek logic with Indian" Yin-Ming " , it could be contended that early logical systems employed natural language. In the ancient Chinese philosophical "School of Names", changeable items used demonstrative pronouns to express pronouns. They had the following characteristics: a.) The Same position in a sentence. b .) Uncertain connotations, changeable characteristics. c.) Could represent people or things. d.) Could distinguish and show similarity or difference. e.) Could show similarity or difference when using natural language. This article not only points out the changeable items in the "School of Names", but also confirms its constant items. Modern logic has united equality, combination, analysis, implication and negation within a proposition. The "School of Names" in ancient China did all this before. "Bi" and "Ci" were used as counter-evidence in going through changeable items to reach the unchangeable ones. In summation, I would like to contend that not using western logical symbols is not tantamount to absence of changeable items and that the synthesis of natural language does not equate to the absence of a formal logic