|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jan 20, 2022 21:13:52 GMT
1. (P=P) is the law of identity.
2. (-P=-P) is the law of identity.
3. ((P=P)=(-P=-P)) is the law of identity equal to the law of identity.
4. (P=P)=P and (-P=-P)= -P is the law of identity as equal to a singular expression; (P=P) is reducible to P, (-P=-P) is reducible to -P.
5. ((P=P)=(-P=-P)) is reducible to (P=-P).
6. P=-P cannot exist due to the law of non-contradiction however ((P=P)=(-P=-P)) is valid.
7. The law of non-contradiction does not exist if (P=P) exists as (P=P) necessitates ((P=P)=(-P=-P)) which is (P=-P); (P=P) does not exist if the law of non-contradiction exists as (P=/=-P) but (P=P) necessitates ((P=P)=(-P=-P)) which is (P=-P).
8. Either the law of non contradiction exists or the law of identity exists, if not then both exist meaning neither exists.
Logical descriptions are rooted in reality. As rooted in reality they are a part, or rather an expression, of reality thus maintain a degree of autonomous as they are expressions that are distinct (ie they exist for what they are).
(P=P) observes P as a container for -P thus in arguing for (P=P) it contains (-P=-P). -P as a container within a container contains -P as (--P=--P) thus (-P=-P) contains (P=P). Both P=P and -P=-P are containers for each other and are effectively united and equivalent.
As equivalent ((P=P)=(-P=-P)) occurs with this being reducible to P=-P.
Dually both (P=P) and (-P=-P) equate as both expressions of the law of identity; to say ((P=P)=(-P=-P)) is to say the law of identity is equivalent to itself.
|
|
|
|
P=-P II
Jan 21, 2022 17:17:02 GMT
via mobile
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jan 21, 2022 17:17:02 GMT
The 4th step is wrong. If P is equal to P=P or -(P=-P), then functional link is broken:
When P=P is true, P is either true or false
When P=P is false, P is either true or false
(The same with -(P=-P)
If (P=P) → P is false, then (P=P) → -P.
|
|
|
|
P=-P II
Jan 21, 2022 23:37:38 GMT
via mobile
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jan 21, 2022 23:37:38 GMT
The 4th step is wrong. If P is equal to P=P or -(P=-P), then functional link is broken: When P=P is true, P is either true or false When P=P is false, P is either true or false (The same with -(P=-P) If (P=P) → P is false, then (P=P) → -P. But I said (P=P)=P not (P=P)->P. If P=P is true then P, if (-P=-P) is true then -P. If P is false after P=P then (P=P)=-P and we are stuck with (P=P)=-P thus another expression of the law of identity being false....the law of identity is not equal to itself, it is not equal to the variables it contains and must be equal to the variables it contains. This can be observed further in the law of identity where P=(P=P) as P is just another expression of P=P and vice versa. The law of identity demands that P=(P=P) and (P=P)=P. If P=P is not the expression of P then the law is false. It is like saying "a horse is a horse" does not mean "horse". Your proof only proved my point. |
|
|
|
P=-P II
Jan 22, 2022 7:25:17 GMT
via mobile
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jan 22, 2022 7:25:17 GMT
The 4th step is wrong. If P is equal to P=P or -(P=-P), then functional link is broken: When P=P is true, P is either true or false When P=P is false, P is either true or false (The same with -(P=-P) If (P=P) → P is false, then (P=P) → -P. But I said (P=P)=P not (P=P)->P. If P=P is true then P, if (-P=-P) is true then -P. If P is false after P=P then (P=P)=-P and we are stuck with (P=P)=-P thus another expression of the law of identity being false....the law of identity is not equal to itself, it is not equal to the variables it contains and must be equal to the variables it contains. This can be observed further in the law of identity where P=(P=P) as P is just another expression of P=P and vice versa. The law of identity demands that P=(P=P) and (P=P)=P. If P=P is not the expression of P then the law is false. It is like saying "a horse is a horse" does not mean "horse". Your proof only proved my point. I can't see how my (according to you – the wrong one interpretation) has proved yours. You're using false premises in your proofs? Even in P=P is not something like P←→P, then it does not mean P←→P cannot imply P or non-P. That was not that what meant. There's no way to reduce (!) P=P to P and l had already written it. There is a major difference between P=P and P, a functional one. To change them (as you offered) is to change functions, but P couldn't describe the same as P=P. The last one is tautology,the former one is an open function. |
|
|
|
P=-P II
Jan 23, 2022 21:06:25 GMT
via mobile
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jan 23, 2022 21:06:25 GMT
But I said (P=P)=P not (P=P)->P. If P=P is true then P, if (-P=-P) is true then -P. If P is false after P=P then (P=P)=-P and we are stuck with (P=P)=-P thus another expression of the law of identity being false....the law of identity is not equal to itself, it is not equal to the variables it contains and must be equal to the variables it contains. This can be observed further in the law of identity where P=(P=P) as P is just another expression of P=P and vice versa. The law of identity demands that P=(P=P) and (P=P)=P. If P=P is not the expression of P then the law is false. It is like saying "a horse is a horse" does not mean "horse". Your proof only proved my point. I can't see how my (according to you – the wrong one interpretation) has proved yours. You're using false premises in your proofs? Even in P=P is not something like P←→P, then it does not mean P←→P cannot imply P or non-P. That was not that what meant. There's no way to reduce (!) P=P to P and l had already written it. There is a major difference between P=P and P, a functional one. To change them (as you offered) is to change functions, but P couldn't describe the same as P=P. The last one is tautology,the former one is an open function. Then "horse is a horse" does not mean "horse". Neither does "1=1" mean "1". |
|
|
|
P=-P II
Jan 23, 2022 21:13:59 GMT
via mobile
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jan 23, 2022 21:13:59 GMT
I can't see how my (according to you – the wrong one interpretation) has proved yours. You're using false premises in your proofs? Even in P=P is not something like P←→P, then it does not mean P←→P cannot imply P or non-P. That was not that what meant. There's no way to reduce (!) P=P to P and l had already written it. There is a major difference between P=P and P, a functional one. To change them (as you offered) is to change functions, but P couldn't describe the same as P=P. The last one is tautology,the former one is an open function. Then "horse is a horse" does not mean "horse". Neither does "1=1" mean "1". Dually P=P is descriptive, it means P Third (P=P)=P is a function. A tautology cannot exist without a function and a function cannot exist without a tautology. One implies the other as P=P is a description of P, if P=P does not mean P then one cannot assign meaning and the law of identity is bunk. One must first pointing to a horse to say "a horse is a horse". To say a "horse is a horse" is to point to a horse. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jan 23, 2022 21:14:52 GMT
I can't see how my (according to you – the wrong one interpretation) has proved yours. You're using false premises in your proofs? Even in P=P is not something like P←→P, then it does not mean P←→P cannot imply P or non-P. That was not that what meant. There's no way to reduce (!) P=P to P and l had already written it. There is a major difference between P=P and P, a functional one. To change them (as you offered) is to change functions, but P couldn't describe the same as P=P. The last one is tautology,the former one is an open function. Then "horse is a horse" does not mean "horse". Neither does "1=1" mean "1". You thought "horse" means "horse is a horse"? Congrats, that wasn't so. Have you heard of this proverb "The life is the life", or "the pain is the pain"? They don't equal to "life" or "pain" (or the life and the pain, whatever). |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jan 23, 2022 21:15:53 GMT
Then "horse is a horse" does not mean "horse". Neither does "1=1" mean "1". Dually P=P is descriptive, it means P Third (P=P)=P is a function. A tautology cannot exist without a function and a function cannot exist without a tautology. One implies the other as P=P is a description of P, if P=P does not mean P then one cannot assign meaning and the law of identity is bunk. No way, it's your own wish or your manufactured rule. 2=2 is not the same as 2... You're confusing the important principle of a statement versus a thing. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jan 23, 2022 21:17:02 GMT
|
|
|
|
P=-P II
Jan 23, 2022 21:18:29 GMT
via mobile
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jan 23, 2022 21:18:29 GMT
Dually P=P is descriptive, it means P Third (P=P)=P is a function. A tautology cannot exist without a function and a function cannot exist without a tautology. One implies the other as P=P is a description of P, if P=P does not mean P then one cannot assign meaning and the law of identity is bunk. No way, it's your own wish or your manufactured rule. 2=2 is not the same as 2... You're confusing the important principle of a statement versus a thing. A statement is a thing. Dually 2 can be described as a function as 2 points, or rather equivovates, to a phenomenon. A variable is a function as it equivocates A horse is a horse, "the horse is being a horse" means horse. The horse being a horse is a horse. Horse points to a horse, it is attached to it. A statement is a thing. A thing is a thing. Both the statement and thing are things and as things equivovate. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jan 23, 2022 21:25:38 GMT
No way, it's your own wish or your manufactured rule. 2=2 is not the same as 2... You're confusing the important principle of a statement versus a thing. A statement is a thing. Dually 2 can be described as a function as 2 points, or rather equivovates, to a phenomenon. A horse is a horse, "the horse is being a horse" means horse. The horse being a horse is a horse. Horse points to a horse, it is attached to it. "2=2" is not the same as "2". The former means some law, some algebraic equation, the latter - is just a number. You cannot number your house "2=2", or nobody asking coffee say that he would like 2=2 coffee. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jan 23, 2022 21:27:04 GMT
Another way to explain it to you is to ask:
1) 2=2 is true?
2) 2 is true?
You can give the answer to the 1st, but you cannot give the answer to the 2nd.
|
|
|
|
P=-P II
Jan 23, 2022 23:06:28 GMT
via mobile
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jan 23, 2022 23:06:28 GMT
Another way to explain it to you is to ask: 1) 2=2 is true? 2) 2 is true? You can give the answer to the 1st, but you cannot give the answer to the 2nd. 2 is a pointer, it's truth value is defined by what it points too. It equates to what it points too thus is a function. Dually P is true as existing, if it exists it has a value of true. Third if P=P does not point to P then one cannot apply the law of identity. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jan 23, 2022 23:07:56 GMT
Another way to explain it to you is to ask: 1) 2=2 is true? 2) 2 is true? You can give the answer to the 1st, but you cannot give the answer to the 2nd. 2 is a pointer, it's truth value is defined by what it points too. Dually P is true as existing, if it exists it has a value of true. 0 is true? |
|
|
|
P=-P II
Jan 23, 2022 23:10:03 GMT
via mobile
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jan 23, 2022 23:10:03 GMT
2 is a pointer, it's truth value is defined by what it points too. Dually P is true as existing, if it exists it has a value of true. 0 is true? Absence exists, we see it in the relationships of objects such as a 0d point between two lines. |
|
