Okay you didn't outright say his text book was about mathematical logic, I'll give you that.
Bt are you not implying that he's wrong because his text book and class was about mathematical logic? Because thats surely what it looks like to me. If you weren't you sure worded it awkwardly.

Once again... no.  Logic does not dictate you take something at face value.  Logic dictates you find underlying assumptions and challenge them. 

If logic relied on believing everyones statements and face value, being a cop would be a LOT easier job.  Just ask everyone if they did it, and when they say no.  Just go home.  No need to try to break peoples albis.  Logically everyone is supposed to be taken at face value.

The unsolved crime rate would skyrocket.

I know I probably shouldn't bother..... since your first post made it seem like you weren't even reading my posts, but bear with me here.

Lets use basic logic here.and take two statements from Sony... and break them down slowly using just one case of unstated assumptions in both to show why they don't say what you think they stay.

Statement 1 "At a roundtable this morning, Sony's game studios chief, Shuhei Yoshida, told reporters that any requirement for users to register a game online in order to play it would be left to game publishers. Sony won't require that."

and 

Statement 2 "Even taking back a step from here, PlayStation 4 can still be enjoyed old school without an Internet connection at all."

Lets take a look at the basic unstated assumptions here.  Basically the stuff we assume is said.

Statement 1 -  Publishers can decide if they want always online DRM, Sony won't require that.

Unstated assumption

PS4 won't have an online DRM system. 

Why this unstated assumption could be false:   They never say the PS4 won't have an online DRM system.  They simply say they won't require users to use one.  

They never state the console won't have it.  For example, If I say "My restruant won't require you to eat a Vegan Dish."  That doesn't mean my restraunts won't have vegan meals.

Does that prove it DOES exist?  No.  I never claimed it did.  It just proves that statement 1 doesn't actually contradict an XONE style system existing.(or any other online DRM) just that SONY won't be mandating it. 

It doesn't even say Sony won't be enforcing it... just that any online DRM won't be mandated by Sony itself.
 
For example... "I won't require you to eat at a vegan dish at my restraunt, however the host of the party, but the host of the party Andre 3000 has requsted only vegan dishes be made and served."

I'm telling the truth, I'm not forcing you to eat a vegan dish or use online DRM.   I AM however serving you the dish, maintaining the online DRM system.

What this really means  (When you pull out the assumption):   Sony isn't forcing all publishers to use this kind of DRM like presumibly microsoft is.  (Whether it exists or not who knows.)

Statement 2 - You can totally play your games system online oldschool.

Unstated assumption - For all games without an online component obviously.

Why the unstated assumption is could be false:  Statement 1.   Statement 1 states that publishers can choose if they require online DRM.   Therefore Sony actually can't logically promise that you can play your games oldschool style outside of the games that Sony itself publishes. 

What this really means (without the assumptions):   At least some games (Sony first part) will definitly not have online DRM. and be able to be played offline oldschool style.

The funny thing is... this still taking Sony at face value.  It's just taking out all of the unstated assumptions made by people.

It's like if Nintendo announced a "new Mario" game and everyone got super excited, but then gets pissed off when it's just Mario Tennis.

Everyone thought it was going to be a new Mario Galaxy.  Due to unstated assumptions.

Nintendo told the truth.  However to many they looked like liars in the end, because they never examined their unstated assumption.  (That by mario they meant Mario mainline platformer.)

Hence, why a statement won't be comforting unless you it's direct, blunt and has no unstated assumptions.  There are even further assumptions in there i didn't touch.  (EX: Sony says that they won't force publishers to use DRM, they never say they actually won't use it.)  

By that logic then the PS3 and the PS2 had DRM. Also the 360...

Sony will never say NO DRM because they have never been against it. They have never dissallowed DRM in their previous consoles (it was always up to the publishers), and they won't on the PS4. Their stance on the issue has not changed. However, just because it's allowed it does not mean it is actively being used and/or that it is mandatory. That is the issue here, Microsoft requires a mandatory form of DRM while Sony has numerous times stated that they will not.

Anything else is pure cynisim or flatout denial.

Yes but accoriding to one guy arguing on here that they cant do a drm cuz sony said there console can be played old school so it wont matter

Hey a fellow logic user!

I don't think that is the case at all. I think there will be publishers that try DRM on the PS4, but its not mandatory, so not every publisher will try this. Most publishers want as many people possible to have access to their products. Now if we as the consumer accept any online required DRM, then I think we will see widespread use of the policy. Until then, I don't think much will change. At least on the PS4 side of things.

Why are you comparing logic a police officer would use to what we should be using in this situation? Police are trained to assume everyone is lying, that isn't how the rest of society works. I'd be a miserable person if I applied your definition of logic to my life.

I wasn't.  I was simply pointing out how "Face Value" isn't logic.  Since it wouldn''t be logical for a Police man to think like that.

Everything after that wasn't police logic.  It was basic informal logic.

It was actually taking Sony at face value and assuming everything they said was true.

All it was doing was removing unstated assumptions that they did not say.

Which is the difference between thinking about a statement critically, and not thinking about it critically.

All not looking at it critically does is get your hopes up and make you think they are saying something they aren't.

Which means if they go against expectations you end up feeling betrayed and like they lied.

When in reality, you just weren't listening to what they were saying.

All 3 console companies have done this before... quite a bit.

So yeah.  It's worth treating such words with suspicion and being ready, just in case.  Otherwise, you might just blame the company for your own blind trust and have lost a chance to voice your frustrations before it's too late/push for clarification.

Being forced to clarify before a company wants is the one few ways you actually can get positive change done.

Oh but it isnt the same. When gamestop starts raising prices because ms dug their greedy paws into their sales they will overcharge gamers. gamestop only makes two dollars per new game sold so they survive off  of used games. expect retaliation after the launch. sony will only have to worry about drm from a handfull of publishers. everytime ms fucks up with anticonsumerism the pressure is put on sony to follow.thank god sony didnt create an xbox live replica and created psn plus. if they are going to nickel and dime us give us something for it.

What? I said you should not accept a claim without support. That includes both the claim that Sony will have DRM and the claim that Sony will not have DRM. The logical thing to do is accept that we don't know yet because Sony has not provided sufficient evidence either way. That's been the position I've been demonstrating in every one of my thread posts. Clearly you're the only one here who's confused. I would lay off the chess metaphors and focus more on knowing the actual position of the person you're replying to. The regurgitated strawmannning is getting a little old.