Taking it an authoritative statement is a fallacy according to the standard laws of logic. — eodnhoj7
What I am arguing is that the standard laws, as directed through eachother lead to contradiction. P=P requires -P=-P to exist if P cannot equal -P. So -P exists through P=P and inherently defines it. — eodnhoj7
P=P requires P cannot equal -P considering "equal" and "not equal" are not defined except through there relations. — eodnhoj7
Considering "=" is defined in accords to (P,P) equality effectively is defined as "(=)P(=)" where it exists if and only of there is P. — eodnhoj7
Actually the law of identity leading to the law of non contradiction, and vice versa observes them as connected and required to defined eachother. — eodnhoj7
They collaborate, and Brian agrees to this fact of "collaboration" if you look at the above posts. — eodnhoj7
The three laws of logic, as are commonly known, are corollaries of each other:
1. The Law of Identity.
2. The Law of Non-contradiction.
3. The Law of Excluded Middle.
By corollary is meant, each law naturally inferences the other. — BrianW
My point is made. — eodnhoj7
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.