Reminded me of Lewis Carroll's classic:
Barry, Cole, and Dix, agreed, with two other friends of theirs, Lang and Mill, that the five should meet, every day, at a certain table d’hôte. Remembering how much amusement they had derived from their code of rules for walking-parties, they devised the following rules to be observed whenever beef appeared on the table:—
(1) If Barry takes salt, then either Cole or Lang takes one only of the two condiments, salt and mustard: if he takes mustard, then either Dix takes neither condiment, or Mill takes both.
(2) If Cole takes salt, then either Barry takes only one condiment, or Mill takes neither: if he takes mustard, then either Dix or Lang takes both.
(3) If Dix takes salt, then either Barry takes neither condiment or Cole take both: if he takes mustard, then either Lang or Mill takes neither.
(4) If Lang takes salt, then Barry or Dix takes only one condiment: if he takes mustard, then either Cole or Mill takes neither.
(5) If Mill takes salt, then either Barry or Lang takes both condiments: if he takes mustard, then either Cole or Dix takes only one.
The Problem is to discover whether these rules are compatible; and, if so, what arrangements are possible.
What's the answer?
BTW, Frege's basic logic doesn't seem to apply in most real-world settings, even assuming that it can cover the temporal and context-depedent (whatever it means precisely) aspects. Think of all sorts of logical fallacies (conjunction, disjunction, anecdotal, ...) or even simple uncertainty (e.g. due to incomplete information).
One approach to these kinds of problems is the quantum probability picture (responses are vectors in the Hilbert space) and another is reinforcement learning.
Invoking the discussion on traders in the market, a fun and relatively simple method to model them is the multi-agent reinforcement learning - a modern alternative to old-school agent-based models.