and so is "word", hence one axiom progresses to another and cycles back to the original simultaneously.

Covered in Prime Triad.

Not changing the subject of "change" as a place holder can be use for a progressive change as: (1→((n→∞)=∆))

Yes, and "Logic" is derived from the ancient not the modern:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

even sourced in the wiki version.


You can make up stuff all you want, I am just showing how the laws contradict eachother necessitating further laws.

It really doesn't matter because if P = (1→((n→∞)=∆)) mathematically P is a variable of change.

Logic is "word" according to the greeks, that is the original source.

A variable may change from 1 to 2 relative to the equation:

1 = x

With x being anything from 1 to 1+1-1, 1+2-2, etc.

Actually it is in proof right now. All axioms lead to further axioms and the axioms cycle back to there origins.

Logic is movement and an act of synthesis, the whole conversation proves this.

Axioms stem to further axioms and the axioms cycle back on themselves.

Not really, the law holds that "P" is a variable that can mean "anything", they just do not apply "anything" as the variable. — eodnhoj7


NO! P is not a variable. It is a place holder.


Variable:


NOUN

"an element, feature, or factor that is liable to vary or change."

http://www.bing.com/search?q=variable+definition&qs=n&form=QBLH&sp=-1&pq=variable+definition&sc=8-19&sk=&cvid=A58D95C1C7C04379B803611D3701E7AE

Place holder:

"a symbol in a mathematical or logical expression that may be replaced by the name of any element of a set"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/placeholder


P can change or it can meaning anything. Either way the difference between "variable" and "placeholder" hold to both interpretations as argued above.




Then self-reference is subject to the fallacy of equivocation, in which case it cannot be a fallacy. — eodnhoj7


GOTCHYA!

You argued that your logic (your grand prime triadic nonsense) holds because of self-referencing. Good to see it fall apart in your own hands.

Not really, because the fallacies are viewed as truth statements and exist as contradictory if an only if the knowledge is viewed as progressive in nature. All knowledge must have a simultaneous circularity,

hence the fallacy is both a fallacy and truth statement at the same time in different respects.



However standard math observes 1=0

https://www.math.hmc.edu/funfacts/ffile ... .1-8.shtml — eodnhoj7


My bad, that is a website for showing the proof is wrong not that 1=0, here are others which address it:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_anyone_provide_the_mathematical_proof_of_0_1_zero_factorial_is_equal_to_one

or:

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/proof-that-0-1.195945/




I've opened that page and it does not say that. Copy-paste that statement here if it exists.


Like I said, no more of your nonsense will pass muster with me.

Well that is a really subjective statement, are you an authority on logic?

The standard laws of Logic apply to these fallacies as well:

1) The Law of Identity: P=P

P can be observed as "all definitions" leading to the fallacy of equivocation, as well as P as a variable being subject to equivocation.

2) The law of non-contradiction:

P≠-P

However standard math observes 1=0

https://www.math.hmc.edu/funfacts/ffile ... .1-8.shtml

3) The law of Excluded Middle:

P ⋁ - P

Contradicts law 2 and 1 if P = 1 and -P = 0

delete.

Then self-reference is subject to the fallacy of equivocation, in which case it cannot be a fallacy.

I argue this in the above laws. Equivocation is not a fallacy, unless it is argued as one.

Not really, the law holds that "P" is a variable that can mean "anything", they just do not apply "anything" as the variable.

Yes that means all definitions are equal to all definitions and the law necessitates equivocation.

There is no explanation the law, except outside the law. The law does not self-reference.

The law is ambiguous.

All "practical experience" can be many different things as it applies to many different people. Even discussing "practical experience" is a practical experience.

If P = "All definitions" then the law necessitates the fallacy of equivocation and the law contradicts itself.

As a matter of Fact the laws of Logic are subject to equivocation as "P=P" necessitates P can mean everything or anything, hence everything is equal to everything.

P can be substituted for rule 2 and rule 3.

You said "practical experience" this is subject to equivocation if you are corrected (hence the argument is contradictory). If it is not, reproduction is existence as perpetual movement whether it be at the cellular level, that of plants, human beings, or even the reproduction of systems of logic itself.

It is "life" and from "life" stems practicality.

The laws of logic do not take into account change.

They are grounded in directed movement, even Einstein claimed nothing exists until something moves.

I am arguing that logic is in a perpetual state of change, and this is the universal law of logic.

The first sentence began with "P=P, does not itself need to progress to further axioms." Then you had a long progressive argument of axioms used to defined P=P.

After the first sentence, I did not even bother reading it.

Your game is a word salad, along with confusing and now you are diverting blame.

Circularity proves this as the form of the answer you provided does not reference the form of the game.

Red herrings as well....


You do know Godels incompleteness theorem renders the foundation of logic incomplete right? It means they are in a perpetual state of contradiction as a further system is needed to justify them.

Logic as a continuum, justified by infinity, is the only answer to giving logic any foundation.

Ad hominums.



You lost according to your own rules, you said "Practical" experience, hence "reproduction" as a continuum. You gave a list of definitions.

It is not my fault.

My response was even short.

You said to provide a practical example, you literally just gave definitions.

Who loses there own game?


ROFL!!!!!!!!!

Then comes up with there own assertions and calls the other guy a narcissist?

ROFL

You lost fair and square.

This is a philosophy forum, there are plenty of philosophers such as Wittgenstein and Neitzche who pointed to the absurdities in logic. I am not setting a precedent here.

If P=P requires -P=-P to exist and is incomplete without -P then what is incomplete is void on its own terms as it must exist through further axioms.

Because it must progress to further axioms, considering it is only a part, it does not exist on its own terms.

The premise was that you show how it applies to practical life, not a series of definitions and assertions.


Lol, you actually made up the rules and cannot follow them.

The Prime Triadic Laws observe all this is more:

1. All logic is a continuum as:

A. a point of origin in which all axioms are extensions of all axioms and as individual axioms they are void.
B. Linear defintion where axioms are separated or connected relative to begining axiom observed.
C. Circular maintainance where all axioms are maintained or dissolved in accords to there circular movement.

The continual nature of finiteness, as a point of inversion from one thing into many as change, sets the foundation for a continuum and the irrational nature of finite truth.



2. All contradiction is a deficiency in structure due to a lack of self referencing existing through opposition. All progression as opposition through seperation is foundation of contradiction.

All axioms as points of origin are beyond contradiction or paradox as they are extensions of all axioms and void in themselves.

All axioms as self referencing are truth statements as logical structure and hence proof statements.

Hence all axioms exist as self maintained as truth statements, contradictory in the respect to being progressive, and both true and false with all false being a gradation of truth while being none of the above as Continuuims. All axioms are true, false, and both/neither.

3. All axioms occur through synthesis as joining, where the axiom is defined by its joining to another axiom as an axiom.


And I can go further.

I just said in the above P=P is incomplete in the quote.

Wow.....


ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I owe both of you thanks for the laughs.

So about 30 minutes.

You can type all the thoughts you want for your proof, because that proof is subject to you. The most you can do is turn my words around on me, but that is inherent within my laws, so you would just be acknowledging them.

But if your logic is deemed as true by others then a bandwagon fallacy occurs, hence it is false.

I win simply because without you being born through synthesis you would have no argument to begin with. Without life, which occurs through the linear direction of organisms and the circulation of genetic material through cells existing through other cells as cells there is no "practicality".

Life is practical with reproduction being the most practical aspect of life stemming from sythesis, with this synthesis further existing through eating, etc.

Times up. Been 15 minutes.

So the laws of logic are subjective?

My reply to "agree...or not"? Is "or" what?

You saying logic is subject to personal experience is what I have been arguing all along "logic has a subjective and objective nature" . You have no proposition because the premises are void...admit defeat. I already admitted to yes with the example of reproduction as a practical example, and you did not give an example and said logic is subjective.

You lost because the contest was already concluded. The answer "was" yes.

Then my logic is automatically correct as I am arguing all logic is subjective, but the fallacy of ad hominem, equivocation (as one experience can mean many things over time), ad hominem (all logic is determined by the source hence attacking the logic is attacking the person) and a whole list of other fallacies occur according to your system. My system allows for contradiction as a grounds for proof through sythesis.

You laws do not.

But you claim no contradiction can exist, yet your logic says it does.

Excuse me for a second.....



ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have been arguing it is subjective all along.

2×9=18 is rambling to a toddler...all is relative.

You have not provide a practical example to your logic...why should I trust you?

Proof. How is it practical? What is practical though considering you are spending the most practical of resources "time" in trying to justify a point I will just absorb for a paper.

Okay...How can the fallacies exist if the fallacies can be applied to eachother.

Second. What is Logic? I provide sources stemming from the Greek as "reason" and "word"...you make up your own.

If the group consensus is spinning there logic around my arguments, and I point out that you do not agree with eachother, then you suffer from a cult disorder where you believe without questioning because an authority told you too.

I am saying P=P but the statement is incomplete.

Practical life is subject to equivocation. Considering you worked to pay for your internet service, and that internet service is spent proving some point to me (all of which I am just absorbing for angles of research) the point is the logic foundations determine where your practical means (money) are spent.

You tell me how your logic is practical.


Reproduction.

Male (thesis) and female (antithesis), synthesize into a further male or female. The genetic composition progresses past its point of origin (parent, parents) while certain elements are maintained (cycled) through the offspring.

So it is your point? So this is your logic and not the group consensus?

"A close similarity, connection or equivalence" is the definition. So you are arguing they are connected. This is just sophistry you are using as you are attaching your own meaning.

I will make it simple

1. Equality is not defined in the laws without the laws being connected.
2. The fallacies can be applied on eachother.
3. The laws are incomplete and the fallacies lead to truth statements.

yeah a corellary,

On iPad, but looking it up on Google (will post defintion site), it observes "a proposition following from one already proved."

So one law leads to another.

If he wants to use infer, then we are left with " to deduce or conclude" which means one is deduced to another.

One progresses to another.

My point is made.

your are right "collerates as infer".

If each of the same laws reach the same conclusion are they connected by the conclusion?

And that is my point, they are strictly belief, hence contradictory. It is a religious dogma...Hence those with the most force win and you subscribe to a force of the will.

If there are many paths to the same end, then by default I do not not contradict them considering all paths are correct by your logic.

I am not contradicting them, as the principle of Identity I argue contains these laws as foundations.

P(p)P observes (p) as "equal", "is", "same as" and eliminates any problem of equivocation the standard laws are subject too.

The fallacies can be applied to eachother, and the laws of logic are incomplete.

Actually the law of identity leading to the law of non contradiction, and vice versa observes them as connected and required to defined eachother.

They collaborate, and Brian agrees to this fact of "collaboration" if you look at the above posts.

Equality is not defined in the law of identity except as a middle term. The middle term of "not equal to" is needed to defined the law of identity considering both "equality" and "not equal" require definition.

P and -P are defined by there realtions in the respective laws, but equality and not equality are not unless the laws defined eachother.

Negation can result in affirmation. To argue the law of non contradiction first is to lead to the nature of identity. Noncontraction leads to identity for an absence of contradiction is structure.


You cannot apply "is the same as" and "equal" without leading to the fallacy of equivocation.