0=0 is Foundation for Number Lines and Numbers as Empty Loops

[Eodnhoj7]

So tell me, this academic training you had...is it stopping shariah law?

What are you waffling about?

If anyone tries to impose Sharia law on a UK citizen against their wishes they'd be prosecuted under UK law. If you mean that Muslims in the UK obey their Sharia 'courts' then like the Jews and their Beth Din 'courts' that is up to them. However, I do think that it's about time that the law was changed to enforce civil registration for Islamic and Jewish marriages, as at present if they don't register and only have a religious marriage according to their customs they are not actually considered married under UK law and the women lose their civil rights with respect to divorce rights, etc.

Is propositional logic subject to aristotelian identity properties or not?

Depends what you mean? If you mean does '=' exist as an operator in PL then no but if you mean does 'P is P' exist then yes, it's the Law of Identity and is (P->P) or more strictly ((P->P)<->(P<-P)).

Stop getting off topic.

So the law of identity as (P=P) can be expressed as ((P->P)<->(P<-P))

Therefore "=" does exist within propositional logic as a different set of symbols?


Equivocation is subject to equivocation and one logical system effectively continues on or loops back to another logical system eventually.

Equality is thus implicit within PL, but its explicit impression is different.


Basically "equality" means nothing....

[Eodnhoj7]

See all phenomena as "empty contextual loops" thread.

If it's the same as the type of gobbledygook you've posted here then I'll pass thanks.

You mean like that gobbly gook of "there is no "equality" in propositional logic but we Express equality in propositional logic this way: ((P->P)<->(P<-P))"

[Arising_uk]

Stop getting off topic.

You were the one waffling about Sharia law you loon.

So the law of identity as (P=P) can be expressed as ((P->P)<->(P<-P))

The Law of Identity is 'P is P', if you want to bring the '=' symbol into PL then you are bringing in a mathematical operator that is not needed as in PL we can just say (P->P) or more strictly ((P->P)<->(P<-P)).

Therefore "=" does exist within propositional logic as a different set of symbols?

No it doesn't, '=' is not an operator in PL no matter how much you wish it to be.

Equivocation is subject to equivocation and one logical system effectively continues on or loops back to another logical system eventually. ...

Keep up the waffle.

Equality is thus implicit within PL, but its explicit impression is different.

Equality in the sense of the '=' sign is a mathematical operator and is not needed in the syntax of PL.

Basically "equality" means nothing....

It means you can substitute the expression on the right for the expression on the left in any equation with no change in result.

[Arising_uk]

You mean like that gobbly gook of "there is no "equality" in propositional logic but we Express equality in propositional logic this way: ((P->P)<->(P<-P))"

Once more for the hard of thought, what I said was the '=' symbol is not in PL and it is not.

[Eodnhoj7]

Stop getting off topic.

You were the one waffling about Sharia law you loon.
[color=#FF0000

To be specific I was "waffling" that whatever rules you where taught about the nature of reality....do not work.

[/color]

So the law of identity as (P=P) can be expressed as ((P->P)<->(P<-P))

The Law of Identity is 'P is P', if you want to bring the '=' symbol into PL then you are bringing in a mathematical operator that is not needed as in PL we can just say (P->P) or more strictly ((P->P)<->(P<-P)).

Therefore "=" does exist within propositional logic as a different set of symbols?

No it doesn't, '=' is not an operator in PL no matter how much you wish it to be.

Equivocation is subject to equivocation and one logical system effectively continues on or loops back to another logical system eventually. ...

Keep up the waffle.

So equivocation is not subject to equivocation...there is only one set of symbols for it? One set of meanings?

Keep up the waffle...whatever that means....

Equality is thus implicit within PL, but its explicit impression is different.

Equality in the sense of the '=' sign is a mathematical operator and is not needed in the syntax of PL.

Basically "equality" means nothing....

It means you can substitute the expression on the right for the expression on the left in any equation with no change in result.

Internally it is there, externally is manifests itself differently...equivocation is there, the symbols morph when the system changes. The symbols are contextual:

(=) --> ((->)<-->(<-))

[Eodnhoj7]

You mean like that gobbly gook of "there is no "equality" in propositional logic but we Express equality in propositional logic this way: ((P->P)<->(P<-P))"

Once more for the hard of thought, what I said was the '=' symbol is not in PL and it is not.

But equality manifest itself under a variety of symbols, you can argue the symbol is not present, but considering it morphs into another symbol it is like saying "we only use even numbers in this field of math, odds are not present"...but all the numbers are composed of odds.

Logical systems require an inversion of one symbol into a different state.