No computer so brief comment:
QED (quantum electro dynamics) it seems, can be mapped by writing out a simple map of what it means to be logical.
The latin "QED" refers to "Quo erat demonstrandum" which means "that which was to be proved".
Funny thing is; this latin "QED" seems to map to the physicists' "QED"!
In fact, apparantly every puzzle associated with quantum electro dynamics might be accounted for by regarding "QED" as LOGIC, and QCD (quantum chromo dynamics) as "fuzzy logic".
Central is the idea of a swapping of roles between "multiplication" and "addition".
Dr. Stafford's paper could be called "quantum axion dynamics". "D'Alemburtian operator" could be called "floating multiplication; "chain rule in calculus" could be called "floating addition".
Fermat's last theorem can apparently be used to shed light on Dr. Stafford's paper.
Logic is about how things fit together without contradicting.
Fermat's last theorem says that x to power n PLUS y to power n EQUALS z to power n HAS no integer solutions greater than 2.
"N space" is divided twice: once into x and y; and once into (x,y) and (z).
If you make "n space" fuzzy, by calling it "2"; you have "a double slit experiment" as you have made this double division in n-space uncertain (by assigning "2" to n).
Now with n=2; x and y could swap places in this 2 room of n; OR (x,y) and (z) could swap places in this 2 room of n; BUT not both.
BUT if n = 3 or more; the roles of "x", of "y", of (x or y) and of "z" can swap such that you don't know which is which, so you cannot find any solutions to the equation as it is no longer defined.
To show something is logical you show ways you can expand it and show that the expansions do not contradict.
The basic premise and the two possible expansions gives the three colours of QCD. It is fuzzy logic because you haven't specified what you are tracking.
E.g.: "go to a movie?" plus "when go?" and "why go when?" is fuzzy.
If you specify the relationship you are tracking, you get 4 dimensions so QED.
E.g. "go to a movie?" plus "when go?" and "why go when?" plus "go now because it's the last screening" is not fuzzy as the list of options "when to go" is mixed up with other options that colour the argument of going at specific times; the uncertainty is broken by a "beginning and ending" factor that defines one option as a limit on how "other options" and "movie screening options" can configure each other's space.
Another logical option would be to contact the theatre and ask for an extra screening. This also allows the two lists "movie options" and "other options" to create common ground so a logical space, where "going to the movie" can be accomodated with all other preferences.
---off the top of my head; figured out careful detail re: physics elsewhere