|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jan 12, 2021 2:12:39 GMT
P=-P observes + = - through the middle term of P where +P equivocates to -P through P. P is the common middle term through which seemingly opposite phenomenon equivocate. Dually both equivocate through the law of identity as both require the use of the law of identity.
|
|
|
|
P=-P
Jan 12, 2021 12:10:33 GMT
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jan 12, 2021 12:10:33 GMT
What do you mean under equivocation?
And what is the difference between "P" and "+P"? Numbers?
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jan 12, 2021 16:49:00 GMT
What do you mean under equivocation? And what is the difference between "P" and "+P"? Numbers? P is the common term amidst +P=-P. Both + and - are the isomorphic opposites of the other. The opposites equivocate through a common bond which is P. For example a glass half full of air and half full of water both equivocate as equals through the glass form which contains them. |
|
|
|
P=-P
Jan 12, 2021 19:34:00 GMT
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jan 12, 2021 19:34:00 GMT
What do you mean under equivocation? And what is the difference between "P" and "+P"? Numbers? P is the common term amidst +P=-P. Both + and - are the isomorphic opposites of the other. The opposites equivocate through a common bond which is P. For example a glass half full of air and half full of water both equivocate as equals through the glass form which contains them. Oh, now I see. Dialectic. Then any P is +P, and there's no P that is not + P. It must be obvious, because for each P there is something additional that we can imagine in absolutely any example. In those glass example is a glass of water itself, so the -P to it is everything else that is not that one glass of water. And this path has no end. |
|
|
|
P=-P
Jan 13, 2021 0:24:22 GMT
Post by joustos on Jan 13, 2021 0:24:22 GMT
(+P = -P) -->(-P = +P) &, evidently, -(+=-) --->-[+P = -P] ----> [+P = +P] so, by introducing evidence in court: the original proposition is a tautology, which claims absolutely nothing. |
|
|
|
P=-P
Jan 13, 2021 17:00:13 GMT
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jan 13, 2021 17:00:13 GMT
(+P = -P) -->(-P = +P) &, evidently, -(+=-) --->-[+P = -P] ----> [+P = +P] so, by introducing evidence in court: the original proposition is a tautology, which claims absolutely nothing. The tautology defines P. In a glass half full of water, +P, and a glass half full of air (nothing), -P, what is observed as constant is the glass, P. P is the middle term which extended across +P and -P. Dually: -(+P=-P) ---> (-P=+P) |
|
