The Classical law of identity (as stated) is inconsistent

[Logik]

There is a conflation between identity and equality in Classical logic, but there is a distinction between these concepts on a Turing machine.

IDENTITY means unique memory address.
EQUALITY means contents-of-memory address.

This can be easily observed in Programming language. The identity of something is not its value, but Aristotelian logic treats the value AS the identity.

Code: Select all

> id(1)
140717799569152
> 1
1

Classical logic overloads "=" to mean both identity and equality. That's why it's inconsistent. Classical logic doesn't have UUIDs - computers do. Memory addresses.

for all x: x = x => Undefined, Complexity: O(1) to O(∞)
for all x: id(x) = id(x) => True, Complexity: O(1)
for all x: id(x) = x => False, Complexity: O(1)

If X is an infinite-precision float then we cannot merely assume X = X => True, we have to prove X !=X => False.

If X above is an infinite-precision integer, then it should take an infinite amount of time to (e.g NEVER) to produce a result.
On the other hand, if X = Integer(1) the result is instantaneous.

This is mistaking the complex for the simple.

If determining the answer of x = x ranges from 1 to ∞ then this IS the principle of explosion in disguise!

[Eodnhoj7]

There is a conflation between identity and equality in Classical logic, but there is a distinction between these concepts on a Turing machine.

IDENTITY means unique memory address.
EQUALITY means contents-of-memory address.

This can be easily observed in Programming language. The identity of something is not its value, but Aristotelian logic treats the value AS the identity.

Code: Select all

> id(1)
140717799569152
> 1
1

Classical logic overloads "=" to mean both identity and equality. That's why it's inconsistent. Classical logic doesn't have UUIDs - computers do. Memory addresses.

for all x: x = x => Undefined, Complexity: O(1) to O(∞)
for all x: id(x) = id(x) => True, Complexity: O(1)
for all x: id(x) = x => False, Complexity: O(1)

If X is an infinite-precision float then we cannot merely assume X = X => True, we have to prove X !=X => False.

If X above is an infinite-precision integer, then it should take an infinite amount of time to (e.g NEVER) to produce a result.
On the other hand, if X = Integer(1) the result is instantaneous.

This is mistaking the complex for the simple.

If determining the answer of x = x ranges from 1 to ∞ then this IS the principle of explosion in disguise!

"equality" is defined through the variable itself and as such is inseperable. The law of identity is traidic:

P=P
=P=
(P=)

[Logik]

"equality" is defined through the variable itself and as such is inseperable. The law of identity is traidic:

P=P
=P=
(P=)

I don't know what "identity" is about anymore.

https://repl.it/@LogikLogicus/OverrideIdentity

It's just an empty phrase.

[Eodnhoj7]

"equality" is defined through the variable itself and as such is inseperable. The law of identity is traidic:

P=P
=P=
(P=)

I don't know what "identity" is about anymore.

https://repl.it/@LogikLogicus/OverrideIdentity

It's just an empty phrase.

False, all emptiness is merely a point of inversion. Identity is trifold as 1...will explain in thread.

[Eodnhoj7]

It appears the op does not take into account the "variable of python" as an inconsistent language.

[Logik]

It appears the op does not take into account the "variable of python" as an inconsistent language.

Because it's not an inconsistent language. Rational languages are not founded upon definitions because Turing machines are not founded upon definitions.

A Turing machine has instructions. Instructions have real-world, measurable, immediate and concrete physical consequences. CPU doing work (using energy), memory being updated, results being returned.

Spoken languages vanish into thin air like a fart in the wind.

[Speakpigeon]

There is a conflation between identity and equality in Classical logic, but there is a distinction between these concepts on a Turing machine.
Classical logic overloads "=" to mean both identity and equality. That's why it's inconsistent.

Could you give examples of classical logic formulas and definitions that show that the notion of identity is inconsistent in classical logic?
In fact, this is something you should have done in your first post. You merely claim the notion of identity is inconsistent in classical logic and then you don't bother to prove how it is effectively inconsistent.
Personally, I have not the faintest idea how that could possibly be and you opening post doesn't say anything as to how it is.
EB

[Eodnhoj7]

It appears the op does not take into account the "variable of python" as an inconsistent language.

Because it's not an inconsistent language. Rational languages are not founded upon definitions because Turing machines are not founded upon definitions.

A Turing machine has instructions. Instructions have real-world, measurable, immediate and concrete physical consequences. CPU doing work (using energy), memory being updated, results being returned.

Spoken languages vanish into thin air like a fart in the wind.

Instructions are a set of parameters that defines functions.

You can take an asymmetric approach to redefining words all you want...but all you are doing is just multiplying one word into a series of variations in an attempt to hide the fact "python" is inconsistent.

[Logik]

Could you give examples of classical logic formulas and definitions that show that the notion of identity is inconsistent in classical logic?
In fact, this is something you should have done in your first post. You merely claim the notion of identity is inconsistent in classical logic and then you don't bother to prove how it is effectively inconsistent.
Personally, I have not the faintest idea how that could possibly be and you opening post doesn't say anything as to how it is.
EB

This is something I DID DO in my post. The integer 1 has two distinct properties. value and identity.
Are you asking me to turn water into wine again?

The identity of 1 is 140717799569152
The value of 1 is 1.

which is expressed in Python as:
for all x: x = x # Meaning for all 1: 1 = 1 e.g value
for all x: id(x) = id(x) # Meaning for all 1: 140717799569152 = 140717799569152 e.g identity

This speaks to the CONCEPT of Universally Unique Identifier: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal ... identifier
And the way to understand that concept is to think of a Turing machine and its infinite ticker tape. Every block on the tape has a unique position in spacetime. Block 1 may contain an A, block 2 may contain an A. The value of both As will be the same, the identity will not.

I further demonstrated that two integers can and do have the same identity and value, but two humans do not:

https://repl.it/@LogikLogicus/IdentityAndValue

And simply from the Python example above it seems to me that A = A is woefully incomplete.

for some x: x = x => True
for some x: x = x => False
for some x: id(x) = id(x) => True
for some x: id(x) = id(x) => False

Which is what you WOULD expect from two different properties. Because 2^2 gives you 4 permutations.

But the simplest way to say it in English and following straight from the wikipedia page's example of "a rose is a rose is a rose".

A rose is a rose is a rose.
But one rose is not another.

[Logik]

Instructions are a set of parameters that defines functions.

You can take an asymmetric approach to redefining words all you want...but all you are doing is just multiplying one word into a series of variations in an attempt to hide the fact "python" is inconsistent.

But I am not re-defining words? I am re-defining symbols.

Words are made up of symbols.

[Eodnhoj7]

Instructions are a set of parameters that defines functions.

You can take an asymmetric approach to redefining words all you want...but all you are doing is just multiplying one word into a series of variations in an attempt to hide the fact "python" is inconsistent.

But I am not re-defining words? I am re-defining symbols.

Words are made up of symbols.

Words are made up of symbols hence exist through what they are composed of; words are symbols.

[commonsense]

Instructions are a set of parameters that defines functions.

You can take an asymmetric approach to redefining words all you want...but all you are doing is just multiplying one word into a series of variations in an attempt to hide the fact "python" is inconsistent.

But I am not re-defining words? I am re-defining symbols.

Words are made up of symbols.

Words are made up of symbols hence exist through what they are composed of; words are symbols.

To redefine the word "five", just make this change: "The word 'five' means the same thing as the number 50."
To redefine a symbol: the symbol 't' stands for the sound "ess", the symbol 'w' stands for "ihh", and 'o' sounds like "ekks". (((This will also change the meaning of the word "two".)))

Words are made of symbols, but they are not the same as symbols. Likely one can be redefined without affecting the other.

[Eodnhoj7]

But I am not re-defining words? I am re-defining symbols.

Words are made up of symbols.

Words are made up of symbols hence exist through what they are composed of; words are symbols.

To redefine the word "five", just make this change: "The word 'five' means the same thing as the number 50."
To redefine a symbol: the symbol 't' stands for the sound "ess", the symbol 'w' stands for "ihh", and 'o' sounds like "ekks". (((This will also change the meaning of the word "two".)))

Words are made of symbols, but they are not the same as symbols. Likely one can be redefined without affecting the other.

False, words are defined through further words under a linear/circular progression and as such exists as medial points to further words as each "word" is conducive to a set of words.

Each word exists as a boundary of movement through which other words, as definitions, exist. In these respects the word is not only a quality (composed of infinite degrees fo words as quantities) but effectively takes on a nature of "direction" equivolent to the "symbol" itself.

Considering symbols follow the same nature as words, words and symbols are effectively equal through there directive qualities. Any variation resulting in a separation in the nature of "word" and "symbol" is still subject to the very same nature of the word/symbol as directives; hence variation is just multiplicity that leaves a sense of obscurity "implying" a separation when in reality no separation exists because of there common nature.

[Eodnhoj7]

Python is a faulty language that implies "creation" when in reality it allows for a process of divergence in symbols giving the illusion of "creation" by promulgating a deep multiplicity in language.

It sets the foundation for the failure of aristotelian identity properties without taking into account its "framework" is subject to these very same aristotelian identity properties.

[commonsense]

Words are made up of symbols hence exist through what they are composed of; words are symbols.

To redefine the word "five", just make this change: "The word 'five' means the same thing as the number 50."
To redefine a symbol: the symbol 't' stands for the sound "ess", the symbol 'w' stands for "ihh", and 'o' sounds like "ekks". (((This will also change the meaning of the word "two".)))

Words are made of symbols, but they are not the same as symbols. Likely one can be redefined without affecting the other.

False, words are defined through further words under a linear/circular progression and as such exists as medial points to further words as each "word" is conducive to a set of words.

Each word exists as a boundary of movement through which other words, as definitions, exist. In these respects the word is not only a quality (composed of infinite degrees fo words as quantities) but effectively takes on a nature of "direction" equivolent to the "symbol" itself.

Considering symbols follow the same nature as words, words and symbols are effectively equal through there directive qualities. Any variation resulting in a separation in the nature of "word" and "symbol" is still subject to the very same nature of the word/symbol as directives; hence variation is just multiplicity that leaves a sense of obscurity "implying" a separation when in reality no separation exists because of there common nature.

Touche