P=P is a Contradiction

[Eodnhoj7]

so, if I say I am me (and no other), that is, quirk is quirk, my self-reference (circular reasoning) is contradictory and -- in fact -- I am not me

ok, then...

According to the fallacies any self referentiality is false due to its circular form falling under the contradiction of circular reasoning.

so, who am I?

A self referential loop that necessitates the fallacies as self negating given the fallacy of circularity is in itself a circular statement (ie circularity is wrong because circularity is wrong.).

[Immanuel Can]

Numbers are a means of counting thus defined by what they count.

No, numbers are quantifiers, which means they are abstractions that apply to any sort of object or substance, or to no specific thing at all, but merely to a mathematical operation.

But what is your point? Nothing you've said even remotely challenges the law of non-contradiction. Heck, you don't even understand the law of non-contradiction, so it appears. So where are you going?

I recommend that course in basics in logic.

[Eodnhoj7]

Numbers are a means of counting thus defined by what they count.

No, numbers are quantifiers, which means they are abstractions that apply to any sort of object or substance, or to no specific thing at all, but merely to a mathematical operation.

But what is your point? Nothing you've said even remotely challenges the law of non-contradiction. Heck, you don't even understand the law of non-contradiction, so it appears. So where are you going?

I recommend that course in basics in logic.

1. As quantifiers numbers are objects given multiple subjective angles of awareness see the same thing.

2. The law of non contradiction negates itself under the law of excluded middle where either the law of identity is false, in which case P=-P given the law of non contradiction's dependence upon the law of identity, or the law of non contradiction is false, in which case P=-P given the law of identity's dependence upon the law of non contradiction.

3. You are avoiding the premise of P=P being circular, as circular it falls under the fallacy of circularity thus is a contradiction.

[Immanuel Can]

1. As quantifiers numbers are objects given multiple subjective angles of awareness see the same thing.

This is just a nonsense statement. It fools nobody.

2. The law of non contradiction negates itself under the law of excluded middle where either the law of identity is false, in which case P=-P given the law of non contradiction's dependence upon the law of identity, or the law of non contradiction is false, in which case P=-P given the law of identity's dependence upon the law of non contradiction.

This is just flat wrong. The law of non-contradiction is mutually dependent on the law of the excluded middle. You very obviously don't even know what each of them is.

3. You are avoiding the premise of P=P being circular,

"Circular" means "true, but only trivially true." it doesn't mean "wrong." It means, "right, but with no particular import."

You know nothing about logic. That's clear.

[Eodnhoj7]

1. As quantifiers numbers are objects given multiple subjective angles of awareness see the same thing.

This is just a nonsense statement. It fools nobody.

False, multiple people observe the number 5 thus making it an objective entity.

2. The law of non contradiction negates itself under the law of excluded middle where either the law of identity is false, in which case P=-P given the law of non contradiction's dependence upon the law of identity, or the law of non contradiction is false, in which case P=-P given the law of identity's dependence upon the law of non contradiction.

This is just flat wrong. The law of non-contradiction is mutually dependent on the law of the excluded middle. You very obviously don't even know what each of them is.

Yet when the laws are applied to themselves contradiction occurs. There mutual dependence necessitates them as being subject to self referentiality.

3. You are avoiding the premise of P=P being circular,

"Circular" means "true, but only trivially true." it doesn't mean "wrong." It means, "right, but with no particular import."

You know nothing about logic. That's clear.

Circularity is a fallacy, thus the law of identity is subject to this fallacy. You obviously forgot about the fallacies of logic. You might want to take a logic 101 course.

[Immanuel Can]

...multiple people observe the number 5 thus making it an objective entity.

This is incorrect. "5" is an abstraction, and cannot be "observed".

Yet when the laws are applied to themselves...

They aren't. They are presuppositions of all logic.

Circularity is a fallacy,

No, circularity is trivially true.

And you don't have a clue what the law of identity is.

[henry quirk]

According to the fallacies any self referentiality is false due to its circular form falling under the contradiction of circular reasoning.

so, who am I?

A self referential loop that necessitates the fallacies as self negating given the fallacy of circularity is in itself a circular statement (ie circularity is wrong because circularity is wrong.).

I got no clue what all that means, so: I'm just gonna take it to mean I'm a contradiction

I've amended my profile page to include it

[Eodnhoj7]

so, who am I?

A self referential loop that necessitates the fallacies as self negating given the fallacy of circularity is in itself a circular statement (ie circularity is wrong because circularity is wrong.).

I got no clue what all that means, so: I'm just gonna take it to mean I'm a contradiction

I've amended my profile page to include it

You are a loop considering you are self referential. As a loop your existence proves the fallacies as wrong considering that which is a loop cannot exist as logical. Your "being" in itself necessitates something as existing beyond the laws of logic.

[henry quirk]

A self referential loop that necessitates the fallacies as self negating given the fallacy of circularity is in itself a circular statement (ie circularity is wrong because circularity is wrong.).

I got no clue what all that means, so: I'm just gonna take it to mean I'm a contradiction

I've amended my profile page to include it

You are a loop considering you are self referential. As a loop your existence proves the fallacies as wrong considering that which is a loop cannot exist as logical. Your "being" in itself necessitates something as existing beyond the laws of logic.

so: a contradiction, yeah?

[Eodnhoj7]

...multiple people observe the number 5 thus making it an objective entity.

This is incorrect. "5" is an abstraction, and cannot be "observed".

All abstractions are observed through the mind. The abstraction of a square is observed through the mind. As observed within the mind it is further physicalized into an empirical entity (ie the form of the square is observed in the mind and then projected into an empirical house.

Yet when the laws are applied to themselves...

They aren't. They are presuppositions of all logic.

They exist as assertions themselves thus necessitate them as being applied to themselves considering the law reflect all assertions, the laws are assertions, thus the laws reflect themselves.

Circularity is a fallacy,

No, circularity is trivially true.

And you don't have a clue what the law of identity is.

Circularity is a fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

The law of identity is subject to multiple definitions thus is subject to slippery slope:

P-->P
P<--P
P<-->P
P=P

P therefore P
P because P
P if and only if P
P is P
P equals P
Etc.

[Eodnhoj7]

I got no clue what all that means, so: I'm just gonna take it to mean I'm a contradiction

I've amended my profile page to include it

You are a loop considering you are self referential. As a loop your existence proves the fallacies as wrong considering that which is a loop cannot exist as logical. Your "being" in itself necessitates something as existing beyond the laws of logic.

so: a contradiction, yeah?

Yeah.

[henry quirk]

You are a loop considering you are self referential. As a loop your existence proves the fallacies as wrong considering that which is a loop cannot exist as logical. Your "being" in itself necessitates something as existing beyond the laws of logic.

so: a contradiction, yeah?

Yeah.

excellent!

[Immanuel Can]

...multiple people observe the number 5 thus making it an objective entity.

This is incorrect. "5" is an abstraction, and cannot be "observed".

All abstractions are observed through the mind.

Then you are "observing" unicorns.

They exist as assertions themselves thus necessitate them...

This is an utterly ungrammatical sentence, and means nothing.

[Eodnhoj7]

This is incorrect. "5" is an abstraction, and cannot be "observed".

All abstractions are observed through the mind.

Then you are "observing" unicorns.

They exist as real abstractions and abstractions are real as abstractions.

They exist as assertions themselves thus necessitate them...

This is an utterly ungrammatical sentence, and means nothing.

"They exist as assertions themselves thus necessitate them as being applied to themselves considering the law reflect all assertions, the laws are assertions, thus the laws reflect themselves."

1. The laws of identity are laws for assertions.

2. The laws of identity are assertions.

3. Thus the laws of identity apply to themselves.

4. The laws of identity applied to themselves result in contradictions where P=-P.

[Immanuel Can]

1. The laws of identity.... contradictions where P=-P.

Just wrong.