SuperAPI AI Directory
Partner with us中文AI newsFavorites
Skillslogic-triple-check

logic-triple-check

General & other

View repository

Updated 10-15 23:44

About this skill

The Threefold Logical Consistency Test

R — Reading

"The criterion for judging whether a belief is 'correct' is 'threefold logical consistency,' namely self-consistency, consistency with others, and continuity."

"Logical consistency with others means that the logical system in which a belief resides must remain consistent with surrounding related logical systems as well as deeper-level logical systems. The concept of a perpetual motion machine was judged to be an impossible technology precisely because it violates the law of entropy increase."

— Li Shanyou, Chapter 8

I — Methodological Skeleton (Interpretation)

A three-layer progressive framework for testing whether a belief/theory/strategy is "temporarily correct":

  1. Logical self-consistency: Can the belief system justify itself internally? Are there contradictions among the logical links? Can the logic and the relevant facts mutually prove each other? — This is the minimum standard, but many common viewpoints cannot even achieve self-consistency.

  2. Logical consistency with others: Is this belief consistent with the surrounding deeper-level logical systems? The standard for consistency with others in physics: any theory must conform to underlying laws such as the law of entropy increase and the constancy of the speed of light. The standard for consistency with others in business: business models and ideas need to remain consistent with foundational disciplines such as economics, sociology, psychology, and complexity science. — This is cross-system verification, and it can eliminate beliefs that are "self-consistent but wrong."

  1. Logical continuity: When the era and scenario change, and when new things, new information, and new evidence appear, does the original belief still hold? — This is verification along the time dimension, identifying beliefs that were "right in the past but are not right now."

Core principle: threefold consistency does not prove "absolute correctness," but judges "temporary correctness." Any belief that passes the threefold consistency test still requires an open mindset.

A1 — Applications in the Book (Past Application)

Case 1: The rejection of perpetual motion machines by consistency with others

  • Problem: Countless people in history tried to invent perpetual motion machines
  • Use of the methodology: Although the concept of a perpetual motion machine can justify itself internally (self-consistency), it violates an underlying law of physics — the law of entropy increase (fails consistency with others)
  • Conclusion: Self-consistency alone is not enough; it must pass consistency with others to be confirmed
  • Result: Perpetual motion machines were judged to be an impossible technology

Case 2: Testing a business model by consistency with others

  • Problem: How can a company test whether its business model is reasonable
  • Use of the methodology: A business model cannot be self-consistent only within business logic; it also needs to remain consistent with basic principles of economics, laws of psychology, sociological trends, and so on
  • Conclusion: Many failed companies do not fail because of internal management problems, but because their business models are inconsistent with foundational disciplines

A2 — Trigger Scenarios (Future Trigger) ★

In what situations will users need this skill?

  1. They want to systematically verify the logic of an important decision/strategy
  2. They hear a viewpoint, feel it makes sense, but are not sure whether it is reliable
  3. Need to justify the reasonableness of a certain proposal to the team/boss
  4. Choosing among multiple options requires a systematic judgment framework

Language signals

  • "Does this proposal have any logical loopholes?"
  • "How do I systematically judge whether this idea is right or wrong?"
  • "How do I confirm that my judgment is not just self-indulgent fantasy?"
  • "Does this theory match the actual situation?"
  • "How do I test whether a strategy is reliable?"

Distinction from adjacent skills

  • Difference from critical-thinking : The threefold logical coherence is a "verifier" (a tool for testing beliefs), while critical thinking is a "wall-breaking hammer" (an attitude for breaking beliefs). One is a technical means, the other is a cognitive posture
  • Difference from implicit-assumption : Identifying implicit assumptions is "diagnosis" (finding problems in the premises), while the threefold logical coherence is a "comprehensive physical examination" (systematically verifying the reliability of the entire reasoning chain)

E — Executable steps (Execution)

  1. Logical self-consistency test

    • Completion standard: List the core logical chain of the belief/proposal and check whether there are contradictions between each link
    • Method: Write out the complete derivation chain in the format "because A → therefore B → therefore C," and check one by one whether A → B and B → C hold
    • Stopping condition: If there is a contradiction within the logical chain, there is no need to continue with subsequent tests; revise directly

  2. Logical other-consistency test

    • Completion standard: Find the larger system in which the belief/proposal is situated and verify whether the two are consistent
    • Method: Ask "Does this proposal/belief violate more fundamental underlying laws?" (For business proposals, ask economics/psychology; for technical proposals, ask physics/mathematics; for management proposals, ask organizational behavior)
    • Stopping condition: If it contradicts a more fundamental system, it indicates that the belief has a structural defect

  3. Logical continued-consistency test

    • Completion standard: List "If XX change occurs in the future, will this belief/proposal still hold?"
    • Method: Simulate 3 possible scenario changes (technological change, market change, competitive landscape change) and test whether the belief still holds under the new scenarios
    • Stopping condition: If the belief fails under the new scenarios, it indicates that it is only temporarily correct under specific conditions and its applicable boundary needs to be marked

B — Boundary (Boundary) ★

Do not use this skill in the following situations

  • Fast decisions under time pressure — the threefold coherence test takes time; use experience/intuition when urgent
  • Pure value judgments (such as aesthetic preferences, moral orientations) — not suitable for logical testing
  • Situations with sufficient empirical data — when data is more reliable than logical derivation, look directly at the data

Failure modes warned about by the author in the book

  • The threefold logical coherence sounds simple, but is actually an advanced logical skill — people without professional logical training find it hard to apply fluently
  • Above logic and reason, there always exist two more powerful forces, "subjective identity" and "group beliefs" — people tend to defend their own beliefs rather than test them
  • The threefold coherence can only judge "temporary correctness," not prove "absolute correctness" — do not equate passing the test with truth

The author's blind spots

  • No detailed breakdown of specific operational cases is given — the perpetual motion machine example is too simple, and there is a lack of guidance on how to do other-consistency/continued-consistency in complex business scenarios
  • "Staying consistent with foundational disciplines" is easier said than done, but cross-disciplinary verification requires an extremely broad knowledge base

Related skills (filled in phase 3)

  • depends-on: implicit-assumption
  • contrasts-with: critical-thinking
  • composes-with: axiomatic-thinking

Audit information

  • Verification passed: V1 ✓ / V2 ✓ / V3 ✓
  • Distillation time: 2026-04-23