But this is the fallacy of circularity.

2+2 = P

And

4 = p

Shows that not only does P have multiple values but is dependent upon functions as well.

P can equal many things and these many definitions means the principle of identity is a law of equivocation which runs counter to the fallacy of equiovcation.

language is a set of axioms, as axioms they exist through these laws.

2+2 = P — eodnhoj7

This is not a value. It is an equation.

4 = p — eodnhoj7

P=4, therefore 4 is the value of P

2+2=P,
2+2=4

therefore, from the above given equations, P=4.


That has nothing to do with P=P (The law of identity).

I will explain it again:

The law of identity may be expressed as P=P.
substitute the P with any identity and the equation preserves its balance.
For example, substitute P with Ball,
that is, P=Ball.

Therefore the expression, according to the law of identity, becomes:

Ball=Ball (because P is on both sides of the original equation.)

It means the identity of a Ball is distinct and cannot be any other identity than a Ball

As you can see, what I've explained has nothing to do with your interpretations. That is how the law of identity works, not in whatever misguided notion you intend to imply.

After the first sentence, I did not even bother reading it. — eodnhoj7

Right, you just proved the point I was making. There is no necessity to proceed.

But the equation is equivalent to P and P=2 2 conisidering P=P is premised in an undefined equivocation.

You can define "=" if you want, but all it will lead to is further frameworks outside the law of identity defining it, as well as multiple meanings to "=".

So much for saying it is not relevant to proceed, and then proceeding.

I think I will proceed with examples on the geometric nature of language through the Laws (considering this argument exists through language and much of what we understand of phenomena have a symbolic nature in the respect they mediate other phenomena):





The nature of language is determined not just by its self-evident under axioms, but how these axioms exist in accords to language as an "axiom" in itself. While these laws are not limited strictly to language, they exist through them, and hence are laws of language and logic as well.


1. All axioms are points of origin; hence all axioms as progressive linear definition and circularity are points of origins. The point of origin progresses to another point of origin through point 2 and cycles back to itself through point 3 with this linear progression and circularity originating from themselves, through eachother and point 1.

Point 1 is original and exists through points 2 and 3 as points 2 and 3.

As original Points 1,2,3 are extension of eachother as one axiom, while simultaneously being nothing in themselves as points of origin that invert to further axioms respectively; hence originate as 1 and 3 through 1 and 3 as 1 and 3 laws



If I look at the sentence:

"The dog ate the cat." These words are inhernent axioms as points of origin in themselves and effectively exist as point space.

Using "(x)∙" as a symbol for point space, which as an axiom is in itself a point of reference to the observer denoting that these laws are not just limited to language but language as symbolism is not just limited to the written word but thoughts within the observer, the sentence can be observed geometrically as:

(The)∙ (dog)∙ (ate)∙ (the)∙ (cat)∙



This sentence in itself is an axiom as a point of origin and can be observed as:

((The)∙ (dog)∙ (ate)∙ (the)∙ (cat)∙)∙



While the same applies to the letters which form the sentence:

(((T)∙(h)∙(e)∙)∙ ((d)∙(o)∙(g)∙)∙ ((a)∙(t)∙(e)∙)∙ ((t)∙(h)∙(e)∙)∙ ((c)∙(a)∙(t)∙)∙)∙


And The paragraphs, pages, etc. as well (this will not be observed for brevity).












2. All axioms are progressive linear definition; point 1 and 3 progress to point 2 as respective points of origin observed in point 1 while this linear progression from one to another through alternation and exists as circulation between points 1 and 3 to point 2 and point 2 progressing to points 1 and 3.

Point 2 is definitive and defines points 1 and 3 with points 1 and 3 defining point 2.

As definitive Points 1,2,3 progress from one to another and are inherently seperate. As seperating one from another they are connected under a common function of "seperation"; hence are defined as 1 and 3 through 1 and 3 as 1 and 3 laws.



If I look at the sentence:

"The dog ate the cat." These words are inhernent axioms as lines of definition in themselves and effectively exist as linear space.

Using "(x)∙→" as a symbol for projective linear space and "(x)∙⇄" as a symbol for connective linear space,


which as an axiom is directed to and from the observer, while connected with the observe from a difference reference point, denoting that these laws are not just limited to language but language as symbolism is not just limited to the written word but thoughts within the observer, the sentence can be observed geometrically as:

(The)∙→ (dog)∙→ (ate)∙→ (the)∙→ (cat)∙

(The)∙⇄ (dog)∙⇄ (ate)∙⇄ (the)∙⇄ (cat)∙



This sentence in itself is an axiom as a projective/connection and can be observed as:

((The)∙→ (dog)∙→ (ate)∙→ (the)∙→ (cat)∙→)∙→ (Z)∙
((The)∙⇄ (dog)∙⇄ (ate)∙⇄ (the)∙⇄ (cat)∙⇄)∙⇄ (Z)∙

(Z)∙ = next sentence.



While the same applies to the letters which form the sentence:

(((T)∙→(h)∙→(e)∙)∙→ ((d)∙→(o)∙→(g)∙)∙→ ((a)∙→(t)∙→(e)∙)∙→ ((t)∙→(h)∙→(e)∙)∙→ ((c)∙→(a)∙→(t)∙→)∙)∙→ (Z)∙

(((T)∙⇄(h)∙⇄(e)∙)∙⇄ ((d)∙⇄(o)∙⇄(g)∙)∙→ ((a)∙⇄(t)∙⇄(e)∙)∙⇄ ((t)∙⇄(h)∙⇄(e)∙)∙⇄ ((c)∙⇄(a)∙⇄(t)∙⇄)∙)∙⇄ (Z)∙

And The paragraphs, pages, etc. as well (this will not be observed for brevity).








3. All axioms are maintain through a circularity, as linear alternation through point 2, and points of origin as point 1, with point 1 and 2 circulating through each other as point three while circulating through themselves as each other. Point 3 maintains itself as circular and maintains points 1 and 2 as circular while points 1,2 and 3 circulating through eachother maintain eachother.

Point 3 is circular and exists through 1 and 2 as 1 and 2.

As circular Points 1,2,3 are maintained through eachother as eachother as one axiom, while simultaneously dissolving into further axioms as eachother; hence they circulate as 1 and 3 through 1 and 3 as 1 and 3 laws.



Considering the sentence, is dependent upon the projective nature in which it is written and read, the nature of the circularity in sentences observes certain inherent characteristics:


It observes the maintenance, or inseparability of certain axioms, where descriptors cycle with the quality being described:

Example:

The brown dog ate the yellow cat.
((The)∙→ ((brown)∙ ⟲ (dog)∙)∙→ (ate)∙→ (the)∙→ ((yellow)∙ ⟲(cat)∙)∙)∙→ (Z)∙



These order of these descriptors changes relative to language as the descriptor may be equally involved in form the quality, and the quality may be equally observed as forming the descriptor. For example in English "Good Man" may be observed in Hebrew as "Man Good".

It also observes that the sentence does not necessarily have to be observed in the same order to have the same meaning.





Observing each progression of one axiom to another, other this circularity in a different manner where a sentence can be arranged in many different ways and yet mean the same thing.

The brown dog ate the yellow cat.

(((The)∙→((Brown)∙⟲(Dog)∙)∙)∙→(Ate)∙⟲ (The)∙→((Yellow)∙⟲(Cat)∙)∙)∙⟲)∙→ (Z)∙

But the equation is equivalent to P — eodnhoj7

I never said that. An equation is a premise with a defined path to the conclusion. It is not an identity.
P=P is an equation (a simplistic one compared to the ordinary mathematical equations we usually use) which expresses how the law of identity works.

The law of identity governs the expression of an identity's distinction. It is not itself an identity.

I've already told you this in a previous post, (from page 10)

It does not mean that the laws change but that, they associate such that the phenomena expresses the conditions we refer to as cyclic. — BrianW

Do not mistake the nature of laws with the nature of phenomena. Do not attribute the characteristics of phenomena to those of laws. — BrianW

Phenomena are always changing but the laws are ever constant. — BrianW

I don't know what you hope to gain by misinterpreting what I have said. Why assume what I'm saying? It is easier to just ask.

. All axioms are points of origin; hence all axioms as progressive linear definition and circularity are points of origins. The point of origin progresses to another point of origin through point 2 and cycles back to itself through point 3 with this linear progression and circularity originating from themselves, through eachother and point 1.

Point 1 is original and exists through points 2 and 3 as points 2 and 3.

As original Points 1,2,3 are extension of eachother as one axiom, while simultaneously being nothing in themselves as points of origin that invert to further axioms respectively; hence originate as 1 and 3 through 1 and 3 as 1 and 3 laws — eodnhoj7

I can't agree with this, as I see a fundamental error. If you are talking about circularity then you cannot refer to a "point of origin". This is fundamental to circularity, no point may be a point of origin. That is why Aristotle designated a perfect circular motion as an eternal activity, it cannot have a beginning or ending.

If I look at the sentence:

"The dog ate the cat." These words are inhernent axioms as points of origin in themselves and effectively exist as point space.

Using "(x)∙" as a symbol for point space, which as an axiom is in itself a point of reference to the observer denoting that these laws are not just limited to language but language as symbolism is not just limited to the written word but thoughts within the observer, the sentence can be observed geometrically as:

(The)∙ (dog)∙ (ate)∙ (the)∙ (cat)∙



This sentence in itself is an axiom as a point of origin and can be observed as:

((The)∙ (dog)∙ (ate)∙ (the)∙ (cat)∙)∙



While the same applies to the letters which form the sentence:

(((T)∙(h)∙(e)∙)∙ ((d)∙(o)∙(g)∙)∙ ((a)∙(t)∙(e)∙)∙ ((t)∙(h)∙(e)∙)∙ ((c)∙(a)∙(t)∙)∙)∙


And The paragraphs, pages, etc. as well (this will not be observed for brevity). — eodnhoj7

So, what you are doing here, is assuming that an axiom is a "point of origin", as a premise, then building upon this an argument which premises that a point of origin as impossible (circularity). Really, all you have is two contradicting premises, the premise of a point of origin and the premise of circularity.

On page 9, you wrote,

1. All axioms are points of origin; hence all axioms as progressive linear definition and circularity are points of origins. The point of origin progresses to another point of origin through point 2 and cycles back to itself through point 3 with this linear progression and circularity originating from themselves, through eachother and point 1.

Point 1 is original and exists through points 2 and 3 as points 2 and 3.

As original Points 1,2,3 are extension of eachother as one axiom, while simultaneously being nothing in themselves as points of origin that invert to further axioms respectively; hence originate as 1 and 3 through 1 and 3 as 1 and 3 laws... — eodnhoj7

And on page 11, you've written,

1. All axioms are points of origin; hence all axioms as progressive linear definition and circularity are points of origins. The point of origin progresses to another point of origin through point 2 and cycles back to itself through point 3 with this linear progression and circularity originating from themselves, through eachother and point 1.

Point 1 is original and exists through points 2 and 3 as points 2 and 3.

As original Points 1,2,3 are extension of eachother as one axiom, while simultaneously being nothing in themselves as points of origin that invert to further axioms respectively; hence originate as 1 and 3 through 1 and 3 as 1 and 3 laws... — eodnhoj7

What makes you think your mistaken assumptions will become right just because you repeat them?

They were wrong on page 9 and still wrong on this page.

It does not mean that the laws change but that, they associate such that the phenomena expresses the conditions we refer to as cyclic. — BrianW

The cycling of axioms, whether abstract, empirical or both, is addressed in the above laws.





Do not mistake the nature of laws with the nature of phenomena. Do not attribute the characteristics of phenomena to those of laws. — BrianW

If the laws are not connected to the phenomena then are they really laws? If the definition is not connected are the laws really true?





Phenomena are always changing but the laws are ever constant. — BrianW

The laws progress to further laws with these laws cycling back to other laws (example can be the definition of mass, volume and density as laws in physics).

This is addressed in the above laws. These laws are constants, and extend through all further laws with these laws as extensions of these one laws merely being approximates of it.

. All axioms are points of origin; hence all axioms as progressive linear definition and circularity are points of origins. The point of origin progresses to another point of origin through point 2 and cycles back to itself through point 3 with this linear progression and circularity originating from themselves, through eachother and point 1.

Point 1 is original and exists through points 2 and 3 as points 2 and 3.

As original Points 1,2,3 are extension of eachother as one axiom, while simultaneously being nothing in themselves as points of origin that invert to further axioms respectively; hence originate as 1 and 3 through 1 and 3 as 1 and 3 laws — eodnhoj7


I can't agree with this, as I see a fundamental error. If you are talking about circularity then you cannot refer to a "point of origin". This is fundamental to circularity, no point may be a point of origin. That is why Aristotle designated a perfect circular motion as an eternal activity, it cannot have a beginning or ending.

Fallacy of Authority if referencing the nature of the circle as pointless. Pythagoras and the Hindus with the Monad and Bindu (respectively) observed the point as the origin of the circle.

1. The circle is a point relative to another larger or smaller circle.

2. The circle as perpetual movement is still relative to other circles as the circle but move clock wise, counterclockwise, expand, contract, etc. in order to move considering all direction and movement occurs relative to other direction and movement. I cannot have a line projecting in one direction without some line projecting in a different direction as there is nowhere to progress to.

Hence the circle moving in all directions at one, through itself as itself, results in the point as an origin where the point is conducive to pure movement in all directions. The circle cannot do this would stemming from the point, with the point as origin simultaneously being beyond movement in one respect and void in another.

3. The standard intepretation of the circle as pure movement, observes the circle originating from nothing (the center point). The circle cannot exist without an origin and this origin is the point through Pi.



Secondarily these laws are progressive. The point of origin progresses to definition and definition to circularity as maintainance with these laws as point of origins allowing progression to further laws.









If I look at the sentence:

"The dog ate the cat." These words are inhernent axioms as points of origin in themselves and effectively exist as point space.

Using "(x)∙" as a symbol for point space, which as an axiom is in itself a point of reference to the observer denoting that these laws are not just limited to language but language as symbolism is not just limited to the written word but thoughts within the observer, the sentence can be observed geometrically as:

(The)∙ (dog)∙ (ate)∙ (the)∙ (cat)∙



This sentence in itself is an axiom as a point of origin and can be observed as:

((The)∙ (dog)∙ (ate)∙ (the)∙ (cat)∙)∙



While the same applies to the letters which form the sentence:

(((T)∙(h)∙(e)∙)∙ ((d)∙(o)∙(g)∙)∙ ((a)∙(t)∙(e)∙)∙ ((t)∙(h)∙(e)∙)∙ ((c)∙(a)∙(t)∙)∙)∙


And The paragraphs, pages, etc. as well (this will not be observed for brevity). — eodnhoj7


So, what you are doing here, is assuming that an axiom is a "point of origin", as a premise, then building upon this an argument which premises that a point of origin as impossible (circularity). Really, all you have is two contradicting premises, the premise of a point of origin and the premise of circularity.

Not really. All points of origin are nothing in themselves, hence observed through the other laws progressively and circularly with laws 2 and 3 being points of origin in themselves with law 2 progressing to 1 and 3 and law three cycling through 1 and 2.

The laws exist through progression into further axioms, with these axioms following the same form and function.

It is like saying that the axioms of math cannot be proven except through the structure which exists from them (arithmetic), but these results in a circularity and is subject to contradiction under standard laws. However these laws observe that progression to circularity are in themselves the foundation of laws, hence the law is self-referencing while open to expansion.

Ignoring the fact that your logic is subject to the fallacies it depends upon to survive only shows how your logic (and that of the classical foundation) is strictly a belief system. These laws allow for belief as a structure, with this belief existing if and only if there is structure with this structure existing through continuuity. The laws progressively cycle through themselves while observe all other laws unable to cycle through there foundations as contradictory on there own terms, hence approximates of these three laws in the respect they cannot be observed except through these three laws.


And all axioms are not "points of origin"? Euclidian axioms are not points of origin for euclidian geometry? Or standard arithmetic axioms are not points of origin for algebra? The constitution is not a point of origin for the U.S. body of law? Attraction is not a point of origin for a man and woman choosing to date eachother?


Contradiction is a deficiency in structure. While these laws are not contradictory, as they maintain themselves and exist through themselves and exist through all further axioms, these laws due to their progressive nature allow for contradiction within the premise as they must continually expand.

This point must be explained as allowing for contradiction is not contradiction.


The self-referencing as contradiction through contradiction, or that contradiction is allowed, maintains the laws as non contradictory in these respects. They are contradictory only in the respect they continually progressing through further laws, but because these 3 laws are always maintaining themselves through a progressive circularity the laws do not contradict themselves.

Rather the laws stemming from these laws contradict themselves as they deficient on their own terms but exist as extensions of these laws.

It allows contradiction by allowing further laws to exist on there own accords even though these laws cannot maintain themselves without being extensions of this laws.

What makes you think saying that "I am mistaken" will suddenly make you right even though your arguments are obviously

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

I mean let's face the obvious truth, you criticize me by saying I am wrong and barely provide an argument except quoting some source (barely, but sometimes) then when I say this is subject to a fallacy of authority or bandwagon you ignore it.

These laws are everywhere, hence all people observe them whether they see the laws directly or not.

The copy and paste is strictly a reference that while you believe you are observing a problem from a seperate angle, the angle has already been addressed.

Misquoting the laws does not make you correct.

These laws are not limited to assumption as these laws are the origins for all movement and observe all fallacies as simultaneous truth statements: hence the laws are authoritative (fallacy of authority), subjective (ad-hominum), progressive (slippery slope), equivocative (fallacy of equivocation)...etc.

In simpler terms all assumptions are points of origin and progress to further axioms while cycling back to the assumption to prove whether the assumption is correct or not.

— eodnhoj7

These laws are observed in all logic but not limited to logic. These laws are observed, from the premise axiom of "logic", in Godel's incompleteness theorems, in "Science" in the zeno quantum effect, religion with "sphere worship/all is one/monadology, psychology with the cycling of emotional states or the projection of one emotional state on to another, the laws of nature, etc.

These laws are universal while existing through particulates as universals. They are synthetic, or joining, in these respects.

Going back to the premise of the thread, if material is the medial, what is a medial?

. All axioms are points of origin; hence all axioms as progressive linear definition and circularity are points of origins. The point of origin progresses to another point of origin through point 2 and cycles back to itself through point 3 with this linear progression and circularity originating from themselves, through eachother and point 1.

Point 1 is original and exists through points 2 and 3 as points 2 and 3. — eodnhoj7

That's not a true circularity. To be a true circle, there can be no difference between point 1,2, and 3, in relation to "point of origin". To be truly circular, any of the points must be equal as potentially the point of origin, such that there cannot be an actual point of origin. So to refer to any point of a circle as a point of origin is to utter a falsity.

Fallacy of Authority if referencing the nature of the circle as pointless. Pythagoras and the Hindus with the Monad and Bindu (respectively) observed the point as the origin of the circle. — eodnhoj7

You seem to misunderstand. My argument is not that the circle is pointless, but that there cannot be a point of origin.

The circle cannot do this would stemming from the point, with the point as origin simultaneously being beyond movement in one respect and void in another. — eodnhoj7

Even this can be understood to be incorrect. There is no reason why the centre point would be the point of origin of the circle. In fact, the irrational nature of pi indicates that there cannot be an actual centre point to the circle. Therefore the centre point cannot be the origin of the circle. This argument is unsound, based in the false premise that a circle actually has a centre point. The irrational nature of pi indicates otherwise.

3. The standard intepretation of the circle as pure movement, observes the circle originating from nothing (the center point). The circle cannot exist without an origin and this origin is the point through Pi. — eodnhoj7

The irrational nature of pi indicates that we'd have to do an infinite reduction to determine the actual centre point of the circle. This is impossible therefore there is no actual centre point. Since there is no actual centre point, it is impossible that the centre point is the origin of the circle.

All points of origin are nothing in themselves, hence observed through the other laws progressively and circularly with laws 2 and 3 being points of origin in themselves with law 2 progressing to 1 and 3 and law three cycling through 1 and 2. — eodnhoj7

Again, I'll reassert what I already told you. If the axioms of logic are related as circular, it is impossible that any one of them could be understood as a point of origin. This is your contradictory argument.

If we can take the law of identity, or any one of the other laws, as a point of origin, then the laws of logic are not circular. If the laws of logic are circular then we cannot take any one of them as a point of origin. Therefore your argument employs contradictory premises, that the axioms may be taken as points of origin, and that they are circular.

Going back to the premise of the thread, if material is the medial, what is a medial? — eodnhoj7

A medal is the reward you get for your excellence in misunderstanding logic.

The cycling of axioms, whether abstract, empirical or both, is addressed in the above laws. — eodnhoj7

Axioms only cycle in your imaginary universe.

If the laws are not connected to the phenomena then are they really laws? If the definition is not connected are the laws really true? — eodnhoj7

Laws are connected to the phenomena they govern. But, that connection does not give them the attributes of those phenomena. There is a difference between laws and phenomena.

The laws progress to further laws with these laws cycling back to other laws (example can be the definition of mass, volume and density as laws in physics). — eodnhoj7

Again, this is your misinterpretation. A definition is not a law (in physics or other).


You are trying to cook up too much stuff. What you're explaining is neither science nor logical.

. All axioms are points of origin; hence all axioms as progressive linear definition and circularity are points of origins. The point of origin progresses to another point of origin through point 2 and cycles back to itself through point 3 with this linear progression and circularity originating from themselves, through eachother and point 1.

Point 1 is original and exists through points 2 and 3 as points 2 and 3. — eodnhoj7


That's not a true circularity. To be a true circle, there can be no difference between point 1,2, and 3, in relation to "point of origin". To be truly circular, any of the points must be equal as potentially the point of origin, such that there cannot be an actual point of origin. So to refer to any point of a circle as a point of origin is to utter a falsity.

Actually 2+2=4 and 4 =2+2 is a circular statement.
And the axioms existing through eachother is circular "Point 1 exists through Points 2 and 3 as points 2 an 3" while maintaining a progressive expansion as point 1 progresses to point 2 and point 2 to point 3.


Circularity results when the premises contain the conclusion.
https://www.bing.com/search?q=fallacy+of+circularity&qs=n&form=QBLH&sp=-1&ghc=1&pq=fallacy+of+circularity&sc=1-22&sk=&cvid=7C6F8626588F400D9EB2A3376972F6D1

Hence even by this standard the principle of Identity as P=P is circular and the origin of all identity is premised on a circularity through equivocation in which equivocation acts as a connective median defining all things. But you say it is not...

ROFL!!!!!!!

Wow no wonder the modern world is dying.






Fallacy of Authority if referencing the nature of the circle as pointless. Pythagoras and the Hindus with the Monad and Bindu (respectively) observed the point as the origin of the circle. — eodnhoj7


You seem to misunderstand. My argument is not that the circle is pointless, but that there cannot be a point of origin.

The circle cannot do this would stemming from the point, with the point as origin simultaneously being beyond movement in one respect and void in another. — eodnhoj7


Even this can be understood to be incorrect. There is no reason why the centre point would be the point of origin of the circle. In fact, the irrational nature of pi indicates that there cannot be an actual centre point to the circle. Therefore the centre point cannot be the origin of the circle. This argument is unsound, based in the false premise that a circle actually has a centre point. The irrational nature of pi indicates otherwise.

Wow...you are actually a liar...the "Point has no Center point?"


https://www.bing.com/search?q=center+point+of+circle&qs=n&form=QBRE&sp=-1&pq=center+point+of+circle&sc=4-22&sk=&cvid=80EB8E77468B4CF487A3349EDBE05BBC

Pi is dependent upon a diameter and the diameter is dependent upon the radius.

I am half tempted to report this as spam, but considering you are actually providing an explanation (however faulty and contradictory) it is still an argument and all arguments have to be respected regardless of there depth...this is philosophy.




3. The standard intepretation of the circle as pure movement, observes the circle originating from nothing (the center point). The circle cannot exist without an origin and this origin is the point through Pi. — eodnhoj7


The irrational nature of pi indicates that we'd have to do an infinite reduction to determine the actual centre point of the circle. This is impossible therefore there is no actual centre point. Since there is no actual centre point, it is impossible that the centre point is the origin of the circle.

Address in premise, all points of origin require a progression and all progressions exist as points of origins.

The point of origin, linear progression and circular maintainance are three symmetrical phenomena that exist as eachother through eachother.






All points of origin are nothing in themselves, hence observed through the other laws progressively and circularly with laws 2 and 3 being points of origin in themselves with law 2 progressing to 1 and 3 and law three cycling through 1 and 2. — eodnhoj7


Again, I'll reassert what I already told you. If the axioms of logic are related as circular, it is impossible that any one of them could be understood as a point of origin. This is your contradictory argument.

See above with principle of identity.



If we can take the law of identity, or any one of the other laws, as a point of origin, then the laws of logic are not circular. If the laws of logic are circular then we cannot take any one of them as a point of origin. Therefore your argument employs contradictory premises, that the axioms may be taken as points of origin, and that they are circular.

In simpler terms all assumptions are points of origin and progress to further axioms while cycling back to the assumption to prove whether the assumption is correct or not. — eodnhoj7

Your axioms originate from assumptions. Well, no wonder they make no sense.

And, by the way, there's a difference between a postulate and and an unfounded assumption. Your incoherent statement proves the latter.

And the axioms existing through eachother is circular "Point 1 exists through Points 2 and 3 as points 2 an 3" while maintaining a progressive expansion as point 1 progresses to point 2 and point 2 to point 3. — eodnhoj7

I agree that if they exist through each other, then they may be circular. But what you do not seem to understand is that if this is the case, that they exist through each other, then none of them may be considered as a "point of origin". Do you know what "point of origin" means? It means first, as in existing prior to the ones which follow. So do you see the contradiction in saying that they only exist in relation to each other, and also that one might considered as a point of origin?

Wow...you are actually a liar...the "Point has no Center point?" — eodnhoj7

Why misquote me just to support a false accusation of "liar". I said the circle has no centre point, and this is clearly demonstrated by the irrational nature of pi.

Pi is dependent upon a diameter and the diameter is dependent upon the radius. — eodnhoj7

Right, and pi is indeterminate because the centre point of a circle is indeterminate. There is no centre point.

Definition of point of origin. : the place where something comes from : the place where something originates. The package's point of origin was somewhere in the U.S. the point of origin of the fire that burned the building down. — eodnhoj7

Right, now do you agree that "where something comes form" implies a temporal priority of one thing in relation to the other? And if one is temporally prior, its existence cannot be dependent on the other. Though the existence of the posterior may be dependent on the prior, it isimpossible that the existence of the prior is dependent on the posterior.. The second may rely on the first, but the first cannot not rely on the second. Therefore if one is the point of origin, the two cannot be "phenomena that exist as each other through each other.

If there is no center point then how do you get the diameter or the radius as half of the diameter stemming from the center of the circle? — eodnhoj7

You cannot get the exact diameter, or radius of a circle, from the circumference, you only get an approximation due to the irrational nature of pi. So you can only get an approximation of the centre, because there is no actual centre.