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.

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.

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.

There's nothing equivocal about practical experience because it refers to something you've clearly and distinctly participated in. Sorry, no hiding behind confusion anymore. The logic I've explained holds for each and every experience.

That argument you gave about reproduction is neither scientific nor philosophic. It is just another one of your word salad tactics. Nothing in it means anything.

The Law of Identity states that:
Everything that exists has a specific nature. Each entity exists as something in particular and it has characteristics that are a part of what it is.

It is expressed mathematically as p=p.
From it, let's substitute p with any phenomenon or existence. I'll use cow, ball, form, cause and you (eodnhoj7) as examples to prove that it holds.


So, P=P

substituting the above with P, we get:

cow=cow
ball=ball
form=form
cause=cause
eodnhoj7=eodnhoj7

That is how you prove it holds. As you can see, there is consistency between what is on one side of the equation and what is on the other. THE PREMISE AUTOMATICALLY LEADS TO THE CONCLUSION.


NOW, HOW ABOUT YOU PROVE YOUR PREMISES?

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.

Stop playing the fool!

Because P=P represents any and all phenomena and experience in reality, therefore the logic holds for everything. That is what to be valid means.

Equivocal means to be ambiguous. As I've explained to you, no experience or phenomena is ambiguous. Otherwise, prove it.

Is a cow ambiguous?
Is a ball ambiguous?
Are you ambiguous? etc, etc

You have no case.

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.

From the explanation I gave on the Law of Non-contradiction, it states that reality does not contradict itself.

ONLY PEOPLE'S INTERPRETATIONS ARE CONTRADICTORY. For example, the interpretation you have of logic. And that is what makes you WRONG.

Yes that means all definitions are equal to all definitions and the law necessitates equivocation. — eodnhoj7

This is just stupid word salad to confuse yourself. The definition of a cow cannot be equal to the definition of a ball. Your interpretation only confuses you.

P=P
Cow=Cow
Ball=Ball. (THIS IS THE CORRECT INTERPRETATION.)

You are WRONG again. This law is the basis of self-reference, that is P=P.

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

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.

delete.

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

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.

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.

However standard math observes 1=0

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

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.

P=P is self-referencing because the premise automatically leads to the conclusion.

So far, I haven't seen you prove any of your prime triadic nonsense. Why don't you give it a try?

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?

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.

P does not change, it is replaced (on both sides of the equation).

There is a difference between a place holder and a variable in mathematics.

A placeholder is a symbol.
A variable is a condition or element which depends on others in the equation.


AGAIN. ONLY A PERSON'S INTERPRETATION CAN BE CONTRADICTORY. IN THIS CASE, YOURS!

All axioms lead to further axioms and the axioms cycle back to there origins. — eodnhoj7

Not yet proven!

Logic is movement and an act of synthesis, the whole conversation proves this. — eodnhoj7

NO.

Axioms stem to further axioms and the axioms cycle back on themselves. — eodnhoj7

Not yet proven!

It seems you are trying to argue that semantics contradicts logic. That won't work either.

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.

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

The equation P=P has no variable.

AGAIN, YOUR INTERPRETATION IS WRONG!

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

Modern greek for word is 'lexi'.

Logic is derived from logos, which is ancient greek (perhaps ionian) for 'word', 'reason' or 'plan'.

AGAIN, YOUR INTERPRETATION IS WRONG!

It really doesn't matter because if P = (1→((n→∞)=∆)) mathematically P is a variable of change. — eodnhoj7

The equation we're discussing is P=P. It has no variable. Don't try to change the subject.

By the way, I'm still waiting for you to prove your prime triadic nonsense.

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.

And as you can see, reason is part of that meaning.

AGAIN, YOUR INTERPRETATION IS WRONG.