∞ is a free variable

[Magnus Anderson]

It's an axiom of classical logic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle

They say it is an axiom. But it isn't really.

Circular reasoning is circular

Well, we've already established that you don't know what circular reasoning is. Now we can see that you're also confusing it with circular definitions.

You've defined False as "not not False"
You've defined True as "not not True"

I've defined "false" as "not true". That's very clearly not a circular definition. A circular definition is a definition that defines a term by using that term. Defining the word "red" as "the color that is red" is an example of circular definition since the word "red" is used as part of the definition of the word "red".

Defining the word "false" as "not not false" is indeed an instance of circular definition but that's not MY definition. That's merely a definition that you're pathetically trying to ascribe to me.

You might as well be a retard who argues that all definitions are circular e.g. that the definition of the word "unicorn" as "a horse with a straight horn on its forehead" is circular because "a horse with a straight horn on its forehead" means the same thing as the word "unicorn".

It's extremely dumb.

But that's what you are . . .

Contradiction.

It's amazing how stubbornly retarded you are.

Beyond belief.

[Magnus Anderson]

Thanks for confirming you can't actually think for yourself.

Your response is the precise thing anybody whose brain is infected with Excluded Middle would say.
This principle has hijacked your ability to make decisions.

So you believe not True means False.

Lol.

You have to be seriously retarded to deny that "not true" means the same thing as "false".

[Skepdick]

They say it is an axiom. But it isn't really.

It really is. That's why YOU keep defining things via negation.

Well, we've already established that you don't know what circular reasoning. Now we can see that you're also confusing it with circular definitions.

Tautologies are circular. Viciously circular.

Excluded Middle is a tautology of classical logic.

I've defined "false" as "not true". That's very clearly not a circular definition.

A circular definition is a definition that defines a term by using that term. Defining the word "red" as "the color that is red" is an example of circular definition since the word "red" is used as part of the definition of the word "red".

So "not False" doesn't mean True?
And "not not True" doesn't man True?

Because those are tautologies of Classical logic.

It's amazing how stubbornly retarded you are.

Beyond belief.

It's amazing that after all this you think you are competent enough to identify the retard in this interaction.

It's either me or you.

[Skepdick]

You have to be seriously retarded to deny that "not true" means the same thing as "false".

It's not true that TREE(3) is even.
It's also not true that TREE(3) is odd.

[Magnus Anderson]

It really is. That's why YOU keep defining things via negation.

Well, you have yet to learn what the law of excluded middle is. Negation has little do with it.

Go ahead and tell us what the law of excluded middle is.

Let's see your brilliant knowledge full on display.

Tautologies are circular. Viciously circular.

Go ahead and tell us what a circular definition is.

Is every definition circular, imbecile?

So "not False" doesn't mean True?
And "not not True" doesn't man True?

Learn what a circular definition is, imbecile.

Give it a chance, try NOT to be an imbecile for once.

[Skepdick]

Well, you have yet to learn what the law of excluded middle is. Negation has little do with it.

Once you learn what it is you'll recognize that negation is integral in its definition.

Go ahead and tell us what the law of excluded middle is.

Let's see your brilliant knowledge full on display.

Informally: for every proposition, either the proposition or its negation is true.
Formally: Forall P in Prop: Either P or not-P.

Go ahead and tell us what a circular definition is.

Defining True as "not False" and False as "not True" makes a very nice circle.

Learn what a circular definition is, imbecile.

I know what a circular definition is, imbecille.

If not A means B and not B means A - you have yourself a nice circle.

excluded middle.png

[Magnus Anderson]

Once you learn what it is you'll recognize that negation is integral in its definition.

You take every chance to misunderstand.

Informally: for every proposition, either the proposition or its negation is true.

Correct. So what does that have to do with words such as "even" and "odd". These aren't propositions.

Defining True as "not False" and False as "not True" makes a very nice circle.

It makes a nice circle, that's true, but the two definitions are not circular themselves.

Instead of giving us TWO definitions that are NOT circular, give us ONE that is.

I know what a circular definition is, imbecille.

Hardly.

[Skepdick]

Informally: for every proposition, either the proposition or its negation is true.

Correct. So what does that have to do with words such as "even" and "odd". These aren't propositions.

Given the proposition of Oddnes with respect to X. Either Odd(X) or not-Odd(X)
Given the proposition of Evenness with respect to X: Either Even(X) or not-Even(X)

It makes a nice circle, that's true, but the two definitions are not circular themselves.

The circle is not a circle in itself!

Instead of giving us TWO definitions that are NOT circular, give us ONE that is.

True is NOT NOT True.

[Magnus Anderson]

Let's see. The resident imbecile has been confusing circular reasoning, circular definitions and circular explanations.

Circular reasoning:

1. The best philosopher is the one who does philosophy the best.

2. Skepdick does philosophy the best.

3. Therefore, Skepdick is the best philosopher.

Circular definition:

The word "Skepdick" means "the resident imbecile that is SKepdick".

Circular explanation:

A: What does the word "true" mean?

B: It means "not false".

A: What does the word "false" mean?

B: It means "not true".

I committed none of these things here:

It's truth value can be derived from the definitions involved. Since "false" is defined as "not true", "true" and "not true" together cover every conceivable truth value.

Of course, the resident imbecile can claim all that he wants.

Had he [ the resident imbecile ] asked me to define the word "true", I certainly wouldn't have said "That which is not false". Instead, I would have said "that which completely corresponds to the portion of reality it refers to".

But as I've said a million times by now, the resident imbecile will do anything to distract.

As the Law of Identity says, resident imbecile is a resident imbecile.

[Magnus Anderson]

Given the proposition of Oddnes with respect to X. Either Odd(X) or not-Odd(X)
Given the proposition of Evenness with respect to X: Either Even(X) or not-Even(X)

These are propositions, imbecile.

"Even" and "odd" are not propositions.

What does defining the term "odd" as "not even" have to do with the law of excluded middle?

We're eagerly waiting for your idiotic answer.

[Magnus Anderson]

True is NOT NOT True.

Good. That's a good example of circular definition. Where have I said something similar? Go ahead, point it out.

[Skepdick]

Instead, I would have said "that which completely corresponds to the portion of reality it refers to".

Is that the true definition?

As the Law of Identity says, resident imbecile is a resident imbecile.

That's not a law either. It's an axiom.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger_logic

Schrödinger logics are many-sorted logics in which the expression x = y is not a well-formed formula in general.

You seem to be maximally triggered now. Is it hard recognizing you've been living a lie?

[Skepdick]

True is NOT NOT True.

Good. That's a good example of circular definition. Where have I said something similar? Go ahead, point it out.

All over this thread!

If Odd is NOT Even; and Even is NOT Odd; then Even is NOT NOT Even; and Odd is NOT NOT Odd.
If Tue is NOT False; and False is NOT True; then True is NOT NOT True; and False is NOT NOT False.

That's Excluded Middle!

[Magnus Anderson]

All over this thread!

If Odd is NOT Even; and Even is NOT Odd; then Even is NOT NOT Even; and Odd is NOT NOT Odd.
If Tue is NOT False; and False is NOT True; then True is NOT NOT True; and False is NOT NOT False.

That's Excluded Middle!

Okay, so you still have no clue and you have yet to learn the difference between descriptions and constructions.

A definition qua description is a statement about the meaning of some term. It's a statement that states that some symbol has the same meaning as some other symbol ( perhaps that same exact symbol. )

"True is NOT false" is a non-circular true description of the meaning of the word "true". It says the word "true" has the same meaning as the term "not false".

"False is NOT true" is a non-circular true description of the meaning of the word "false". It says the word "false" has the same meaning as the term "not true".

"True is NOT NOT true" is a circular but true description of the meaning of the word "true". It says that the word "true" has the same meaning as the term "not not true".

They are all true but one of them is circular and thus of little to no use in certain situations.

But descriptions aren't constructions. And a circular description is not necessarily a circular construction.

If the concept of true is constructed as "the opposite of false" and the concept of false is constructed as "the opposite of true", then we have a circular construction that renders the concept of true effectively non-existent and the word "true" meaningless.

But unfortunately for you, the concept of true isn't circularly constructed. That's your own pet fantasy.

You have no proof that I've constructed the concept of true in a circular fashion merely a pathetic, excessively strong desire to believe so.

And in the end, all of this is just a typical Skepdickian distraction . . .

[Magnus Anderson]

All over this thread!

And once again, nope, that's not true. First of all, I never said that "true is not not true". Although true it's not a useful statement. And I also never constructed the term "true" in a circular fashion. That's your own fantasy.