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.

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!

The equation P=P has no variable.

AGAIN, YOUR INTERPRETATION IS WRONG!

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

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!

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!

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.

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.

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

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.)

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.

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.

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?

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.

No matter the progression of thought, isn't the premise that, you think? Do you doubt that?

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. — eodnhoj7

=> So what? How does this manifest in reality or phenomena?

B. Linear defintion where axioms are separated or connected relative to begining axiom observed. — eodnhoj7

=> Again, so what? How does this manifest in reality or phenomena?

C. Circular maintainance where all axioms are maintained or dissolved in accords to there circular movement. — eodnhoj7

And again, you get the drift don't you? How does this manifest in reality or phenomena?

Your logic seems to exist in your imagination only. I guess that's why you keep hiding behind subjectivity. Clearly, yours is.

My explanations of logic are grounded in "phenomena", "reality" and "existence". Isn't that practical enough?

If you want you can insert any example.

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. — BrianW

=> e.g. cow, ball, etc.

I thought you would understand.


On the other hand,

NONE OF YOUR PREMISES IS GROUNDED IN ANY OBSERVABLE PROOF.

LOGIC

Some sources relate it with reason others with principles inherent in the function or expression of reality and its many aspects.
For example:

1. reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.
2. a formal scientific method of examining or thinking about ideas.
3. the formal principles of a branch of knowledge.
4. a method of reasoning that involves a series of statements, each of which must be true if the statement before it is true.
5. any particular formal system in which are defined axioms and rules of inference.
6. the system and principles of reasoning used in a specific field of study.

There are many other definitions given but the fundamental meaning remains the same.

Thus logic refers to a system or method which governs our understanding. This means that the premise must lead automatically or naturally to the conclusion.
For me, logic is realised from the laws or principles governing phenomena, which means that, the conclusions drawn must be explicit in the way we understand and relate to phenomena and consequently how we interact with reality. I believe that is how the three laws of logic came to be.
They are:

1. The Law of Identity.

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.
Identity is the concept that refers to all aspects of existence, that is, the aspect of existing as something in particular, with specific characteristics. An entity without an identity cannot exist because it would be nothing. To exist is to exist as something, and that means to exist with a particular identity.
The concept of identity is important because it makes explicit that reality has a definite nature. Since reality has an identity, it is knowable.
The proof of this is the experience of phenomena. That is, we only experience what is affirmed as an identity through its specific characteristics.

2. The Law of Non-Contradiction

First, a contradiction arises when two ideas each make the other impossible. Contradictions don't exist in reality because reality simply is as it is and does not contradict itself.
Only our ideas and interpretations can be contradictory.

It states that contradictory identities, circumstances or statements cannot both be true when having similar values. It is complementary to the law of identity.

3. The Law of Excluded Middle

It states that a proposition is either true or false. There is no middle ground between the two which is neither true nor false or both true and false. It is also complementary to the law of identity and the law of non-contradiction.


IS LOGIC SUBJECTIVE?

The claim that logic is subjective can take the form of:
1. a mere assertion, in which case, there are no grounds for believing it
2. an argument, in which case, it becomes the very thing it attempts to disprove and hence fails.

Logic is established or realised from the laws which govern the domain of knowledge (of phemomena or the reality they exist in) and in which both the subjective and the objective are aspects.

Therefore, as is readily apparent from the above argument, there is no excuse or escape from adhering to logic. There is no hiding behind the idea of subjectivity, circularity, paradoxes, etc. There are no assumed or unfounded premises or conclusions in the representation of logic. Everything is stated as it is related to in our experiences of reality. And that is the absolute validity of logic.

Sorry, I did not know the 'reproduction' example was your reply. I will give mine shortly. Please be patient.

Do you agree with my proposition or not?

If you believe you're right then it should not be a problem.

So, what is your reply?

If we show how our logic applies to practical life then there can be no contradictions when experience itself is proof of its reliability.

It doesn't matter who goes first or last, the point is after those final statements, there should be no more.

So, do you agree?

Let us have one final argument in support of our points and let them stand on their own merit. We should not have any further statements after them whether we agree or not. Are you in? It's a standoff and only those who read them will know who is logical and who is illogical. The weight of our principles and understanding will reveal themselves in those final statements.

Do you agree with this?

How about we each show the validity of of our logic by how it presents in practical life? This means using points of reference which are proofs and that means physical phenomena only. It is the simplest and most clarifying way to prove our points. Are you willing to bet your understanding on that?

As I have said, their connection or relation is that of correspondence, not whatever meaning you want to attach to it.

Please don't misquote me. I said the three laws inference each other. This means that each of the three laws reach the same conclusion and therefore point to each other as correspondences.

I think, perhaps egotism and its many contributory factors. Like, arrogance and over-ambition or an inordinate fixation towards something (a kind of addiction), which then causes a person to exhibit impulsiveness or less caution than if they had the presence of mind to at least consider the variables. There also seems to be a level of deficiency in perspective which could explain personalisation and which I think falls on the passive side of egotism. Does any of this make any sense?

then should agreement and consensus building take first order or of utmost importance? — Posty McPostface

No. First order is always understanding — unenlightened

I feel like it's a bit cyclic. Can there be understanding without agreement and consensus. The 'dialogue' solution is a great one but, I think, it works for people willing to find a solution. How would it work on someone who's unwilling to self-reflect earnestly?

Why are we still arguing? I may not know every philosopher but I know with certitude that every field of knowledge is based upon premises which do not contradict those laws.

Now, unless you're going to provide proof and prove me wrong, I suggest we end this right here. You can have the last word if you wish.

UNDOUBTEDLY!!!

Well then, consider me amazed. Either all philosophers who adhere to those laws of logic are blind making you the only sighted philosopher or...

Adieu

What happened to having sources? I seem to have given you quite a few. So, when do I get yours?

Arguing contradiction is a logical conclusion is the fallacy which is being highlighted. That you can't realise that shows I should not waste any more time on you.

YOU WIN.

Address above. However the Law of Identity is fault being P=P would require "=" to be defined under the same law in which it is not. It is void of meaning, hence the law contradicts itself. — eodnhoj7

Do you see any "=" in the explanation given for law of identity? Stop dreaming, pinch yourself and wake up. There is no hiding behind misunderstood equations with me. Read, understand and know you are mistaken!

Then, it is as I said before, you are using unfounded premises which are deemed fallacious by every law of logic. Hence, illogical.

4. On Contradictions (http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_Contradiction.html)

Contradiction

A contradiction arises when two ideas each make the other impossible. Contradictions don't exist in reality because reality simply is as it is and does not contradict itself. Only our evaluations of reality can contradict each other. If you think you have found a contradiction, then check your premises. Either you're mistaken about it being a contradiction or one of the contradicting concepts has been improperly formed.

If the content of your knowledge contains contradictions, then some of your knowledge is in error. Because in order to be successful in reality one must know reality, success requires correct knowledge. It is therefore important to continually search for and root out contradictions in your knowledge in order to make sure that your knowledge corresponds to reality. The two primary methods for doing this are logic, the art of non-contradictory identification, and integration.

Before I proceed to the law of non-contradiction, something you might want to understand:

3. Irrational Epistemology (http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Irrational_Main.html)

Irrational Epistemology
Epistemology is the study of knowledge, and how we come to achieve it. A proper epistemology allows us to gain valid understanding of the world, and identify incorrect ideas. An epistemology based on reason is our means of successfully acquiring knowledge. An irrational epistemology, though, impairs the functioning of the mind. The more irrational it is, the less valid the knowledge one has is.

Since philosophy is a kind of knowledge, an irrational epistemology is the destroyer of a rational philosophy. It is makes it difficult or impossible to get other parts of the philosophy right, since it is prevents the proper functioning of the mind.

Like all misbegotten notions, most irrational epistemological theories or assumptions are not practiced consistently. The result would be an inability to deal with the world. Instead, an irrational epistemology is practiced inconsistently. It impairs the mind when it is used, but it is often ignored allowing limited real use of one's mind.

The following is a list of common epistemological mistakes or flawed systems. It is not an exhaustive list, since there are an infinite number of ways one can be wrong (and only one way to be right).

Faith
A Priori Knowledge
Philosopher's Deduction Fallacy
Subjectivism
Polylogism
Determinism
Fallacy of the Second Standard
Skepticism


=> In bold are your mistakes too.

2. The Law of Identity (http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_Identity.html)

A is A: Aristotle's Law of Identity
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. "This leaf is red, solid, dry, rough, and flammable." "This book is white, and has 312 pages." "This coin is round, dense, smooth, and has a picture on it." In all three of these cases we are referring to an entity with a specific identity; the particular type of identity, or the trait discussed, is not important. Their identities include all of their features, not just those mentioned.

Identity is the concept that refers to this aspect of existence; the aspect of existing as something in particular, with specific characteristics. An entity without an identity cannot exist because it would be nothing. To exist is to exist as something, and that means to exist with a particular identity.

To have an identity means to have a single identity; an object cannot have two identities. A tree cannot be a telephone, and a dog cannot be a cat. Each entity exists as something specific, its identity is particular, and it cannot exist as something else. An entity can have more than one characteristic, but any characteristic it has is a part of its identity. A car can be both blue and red, but not at the same time or not in the same respect. Whatever portion is blue cannot be red at the same time, in the same way. Half the car can be red, and the other half blue. But the whole car can't be both red and blue. These two traits, blue and red, each have single, particular identities.

The concept of identity is important because it makes explicit that reality has a definite nature. Since reality has an identity, it is knowable. Since it exists in a particular way, it has no contradictions.


=> Therefore, any 'thing' (e.g. a line) can only be that 'thing' (e.g. a line) due to its own unique/distinct IDENTITY.

Now, on to your fallacies:

1. What is an axiom (http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_Axiom.html)

Axiom
An axiom is an irreducible primary. It doesn't rest upon anything in order to be valid, and it cannot be proven by any "more basic" premises. A true axiom can not be refuted because the act of trying to refute it requires that very axiom as a premise. An attempt to contradict an axiom can only end in a contradiction.

The term "axiom" has been abused in many different ways, so it is important to distinguish the proper definition from the others. The other definitions amount to calling any arbitrary postulate an 'axiom'. The famous example of this is Euclidean geometry. Euclid was a Greek mathematician who applied deductive logic to a few postulates, which he called axioms. In this sense, "axiom" was used to mean a postulate which one was sure was true. Later, though, it was shown that his postulates were sometimes false, and so the conclusions he made were equally false. The "axiom" he used was basing his geometry on a two dimensional plane. When his work was applied to the surface of a sphere, though, it broke down. A triangle's three angles add up to 180 degrees on a plane; they do not add up to 180 degrees on the surface of a sphere. The point is that Euclid's "axioms" were actually postulates.

True axioms are more solid than that. They are not statements we merely believe to be true; they are statements that we cannot deny without using them in our denial. Axioms are the foundation of all knowledge.
There are only a few axioms that have been identified. These are: Existence Exists, The Law of Identity, and Consciousness.

Point of Origin as unification of all axioms and all axioms as inversive, as an axiom. — eodnhoj7

Where and how have you arrived at this?

Linear Definition as connection and seperation of axioms, as an axiom. — eodnhoj7

Where and how have you arrived at this?

Circularity as maintenance and dissolution of axioms, as an axiom. — eodnhoj7

Where and how have you arrived at this?

Each law defines the other through collaboration according to Brian. — eodnhoj7

This only applied to those three laws of logic, not every law in existence. Dude, context, please!


archimedes constant (pi), euler's number, pythagoras constant, the golden ratio, etc; are a few common mathematical constants which represent certain mathematical relationships

Is it your testimony that they are all the same? If you think so, then b**s***. If not, then that's the point we've been trying to make. The word relationship does not equate unrelated circumstances.

Logic is the realisation of the laws which govern phenomena...Quote source. — eodnhoj7

This is my interpretation. However merriam-webster says, the formal principles of a branch of knowledge. I've given that explanation because I've deduced that we perceive phenomena, hence, our knowledge is that of phenomena and its relations.

Also those phenomena, as logical, require logic to circle back on itself — eodnhoj7

You seem to not understand what logic is. Logic is the realisation (or expression) of the laws which govern phenomena. The laws are intrinsic to phenomena and are not phenomena themselves.

You still have not given me what I ask for, I am getting the impression you are just make all of this up and pretending to be an authority. — eodnhoj7

What haven't I answered?

Logic is the realisation of the laws which govern phenomena. Because they are derived from perception of phenomena, they leave little to faults. The few fallacies attributed to them are present within human perspectives not the laws in themselves. This is the point which you fail to see. There is nothing wrong with logic. What is wrong is the interpretation of it.

So 1+1=2 will eventually be false? — eodnhoj7

Isn't it based on a law which governs phenomena? Then you already have my answer.