What LEM is not

[Skepdick]

Because you don't understand anything let me explain it to you like you are child.

"X is either A or B" means "X belongs to the set of elements { A, B }".

IF that's a true statement then it trivially follows that it's impossible for X to be anything other than A; or B.
IF that's a true statement then it's impossible for X to be C; or D; or E; or an Elephant. Or a Moon.

Because you SAID that X belongs to the set {A, B}! That's it! Those are your only options.
You DIDN'T SAY X belongs to the set {A, B, Elephant, Moon}

IF that's a false statement then it trivially follows that it's impossible for X to be A AND it's impossible for X to be B.

So is it a true statement; or a false statement?

You are like a child who's told they can have either chocolate or vanilla icecream.
But then you choose strawberry.

You literally fail to grasp the difference between identifying a range of choices (A or B); and making a choice.

This is a fundamental principle in logic and set theory - when you define a domain of possible values, you are explicitly excluding all other possibilities.

[Magnus Anderson]

"X is either A or B" means "X belongs to the set of elements { A, B }".

Equivocation.

Are you using the word "equivocation" the way everyone does or are you using it your own way?

If you're using it your own way, you should tell us what you mean by it before you use it so that we don't have to read your mind, guess what you mean by it and potentially misinterpret you. It's in your interest ( assuming your interest isn't to deceive but to communicate your genuine thoughts. )

If you're using it the way everyone is using it, then you don't know what the word actually means.

Equivocation is a logical fallacy that occurs when we use one and the same word in two different ways throughout the argument but end up forgetting that we're doing so and mistakenly treating them as if they mean the same thing.

Example:

1) Only men speak English language.
2) Women are not men.
3) Therefore, women do not speak English language.

In the first premise, the word "men" is used to mean "human beings".

In the second premise, the word "men" is used to mean "male human beings".

The conclusion is deduced as a consequence of forgetting that the word means one thing in the first premise and another in the second.

What you responded to, however, does not consist of an argument at all. Instead, it's merely a statement. A statement about the meaning of the statement "X is either A or B". As such, there is no room for equivocation whatsoever.

[Skepdick]

"X is either A or B" means "X belongs to the set of elements { A, B }".

Equivocation.

Are you using the word "equivocation" the way everyone does or are you using it your own way?

I am using it precisely the way it's supposed to be used.

You insist that X belongs to the set of elements {A,B}. And then you begin talking about X being something other than A or B.
First you were speaking about X ∈ {A,B}
And then you were speaking about X ∉ {A,B}

Those are two different uses of X.

[Magnus Anderson]

Either "Truth is valuable" is relevant (e.g it's true) And you need to prove it.

So "Truth is relevant" actually means "All truth is relevant"?

Why didn't you say so?

Do you intentionally choose to be vague or did you seriously not know how to be unambiguous in this particular case?

"Truth is valuable" is NOT relevant (e.g it's false) <--- this is your claim. Prove it.

What exactly is my claim?

Both "Truth is valuable"; and "Truth is valuable" is relevant to the dialogue are instances of LEM.

So "Turth is valuable" and "Truth is valuable" are two different statements even though they look exactly the same, both of which are relevant because . . . Skepdick says so?

Insisting that an instance of LEM is not relevant to LEM is a contradiction.

What is an instance of LEM?

[Magnus Anderson]

I am using it precisely the way it's supposed to be used.

So you don't actually know what it means.

Tell us the standard definition of the word of "equivocation".

[Skepdick]

I am using it precisely the way it's supposed to be used.

So you don't actually know what it means.

Tell us the standard definition of the word of "equivocation".

equivocation
/ɪˌkwɪvəˈkeɪʃ(ə)n/
noun
the use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself; prevarication.

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

In logic, equivocation ("calling two different things by the same name") is an informal fallacy resulting from the use of a particular word or expression in multiple senses within an argument.

First you said X ∈ {A,B}.
Then you said X ∉ {A,B}

Those are two different meanings for X.

[Magnus Anderson]

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

Explain it in your words. Prove that you understood what you read. Don't just paste Wikipedia links.

First you said X ∈ {A,B}.
Then you said X ∉ {A,B}

Those are two different meanings for X.

This is what you responded to:

"X is either A or B" means "X belongs to the set of elements { A, B }".

Where exactly does it say that X does not belong to { A, B } ?

[Skepdick]

Explain it in your words. Prove that you understood what you read. Don't just paste Wikipedia links.

[MINDLESS EXPLETIVES DELETED]

You asked me for the STANDARD DEFINITION.

You want the "STANDARD DEFINITION" in my own words?

Tell us the standard definition of the word of "equivocation".

Where exactly does it say that X does not belong to { A, B } ?

Right here:

If X is something else.

How can X be "either A or B"......OR something else?

[Magnus Anderson]

You want the "STANDARD DEFINITION" in my own words?

Exactly. Prove to us that you understood it.

Right here:

"Right here" is somewhere else, i.e. it's not in the statement that you quoted. That's a part of a different statement of mine, one that, for some reason, you did not quote. ( It's in the third quote of yours, so it's not even in the second one. )

So what exactly is your objection?

How can X be "either A or B"......OR something else?

You're not paying enough attention, obviously.

Noone said anything about the truth value of "X is either A or B". Noone said it's true. Noone said it's false. The only thing said is what it means and in what scenarios it would be true and in what scenarios it would be false.

[Skepdick]

Exactly. Prove to us that you understood it.

I am literally doing that.

You are claiming that X is either A or B.
Then you are also claiming that X could be something else.

That's equivocation.

Noone said anything about the truth value "X is either A or B". I merely said what that statement means and in what scenarios it would be true and in what scenarios it would be false.

Q.E.D!

The statement "X is either A or B" is NEITHER true NOR false!

Thus contradicting LEM.

[Magnus Anderson]

I am literally doing that.

You're literally avoiding doing that.

Explain in your own words the standard meaning of the word "equivocation".

You are claiming that X is either A or B.
Then you are also claiming that X could be something else.

That's equivocation.

Let's ignore the fact that I am definitely not doing that and that you're merely hallucinating.

The above is not an instance of equivocation.

The above is an instance of contradiction.

Q.E.D!

The statement "X is either A or B" is NEITHER true NOR false!

Thus contradicting LEM.

So if I don't say anything about the truth value of a statement, it follows that it is neither true nor false?

If I don't tell you the truth value of "2 + 2 = 4", the statement is neither true nor false?

A: Is the statement "The Earth is round" true, Johnny?

B: I don't know.

A: See, Johnny! That means it's neither true nor false!

Bizarre way of thinking.

"Neither true nor false" is actually a contradiction in terms, an oxymoron, that translates to "both true and false".

If something is "not true", it's false.

If something is "not false", it's true.

Thus, something that is "not true and not false" is actually "both true and false".

There is nothing that is "neither true nor false". But there are things that have no truth value, e.g. non-propositional statements such as "This statement is false."

[Skepdick]

Explain in your own words the standard meaning of the word "equivocation".

Equivocation is when you are using the same expression (e.g the expression "X") to have TWO DIFFERENT MEANINGS.

Which is precisely what you are doing.

First you mean X is either A or B.
THEN you mean X is something else.

The above is not an instance of equivocation.

The above is an instance of contradiction.

That's impossible to be true! Contradictions cannot be instantiated.

So if I don't say anything about the truth value of a statement, it follows that it is neither true nor false?

What nonse are you spewing? Your statement contains a free variable - X. Is 2 + x = 4 true or false?

If I don't tell you the truth value of "2 + 2 = 4", the statement is neither true nor false?

False equivalence.

2+2=4 has no free variables
"X is either A or B" has a free variable.

"Neither true nor false" is actually a contradiction in terms, an oxymoron, that translates to "both true and false".

That's impossible. Contradictions can't be instantiated!

If something is "not true", it's false.

If something is "not false", it's true.

2+X=4 is not true.
2+X =4 is not false

2+X=4 is neither true nor false

"X is either A or B" is neither true nor false.

X is either A or B; or X is NOT (A or B) is true. Because it's a tautology.

[Magnus Anderson]

Equivocation is when you are using the same expression (e.g the expression "X") to have TWO DIFFERENT MEANINGS.

So you don't actually know what equivocation is.

False equivalence.

2+2=4 has no free variables
"X is either A or B" has a free variable.

And?

2+X=4 is not true.
2+X =4 is not false

2+X=4 is neither true nor false

Nonsense.

You have to first discover the value of X.

Once you do that, you can tell whether or not the statement is a propositional one, and if it is, whether the statement is true or false.

Again, "neither true nor false" is an oxymoron. And absolutely nothing can be represented by an oxymoron.

"X is either A or B" is neither true nor false.

You wish.

[Magnus Anderson]

My claim is that you don't understand the difference between a TYPE (X is either A or B).
And a value. X=A, X=B.

And my claim is that you do not understand English language.

When we say "X is Y", we're saying "The portion of reality that is referenced by X can be represented by the symbol Y".

Put differently, we're saying that X belongs to the class denoted by Y ( even if Y is a singleton class, i.e. a class that only has one instance. )

That can also be stated as, "X is a member of the set denoted by Y, a set that may be a singleton set, i.e. a set containing only one member."

So, when we say, "X is a natural number", we are saying that X is a member of the set of all natural numbers N = { 1, 2, 3, ... }. We're not saying that X is a class denoted by the term "natural number". Just as we're not saying that it is some specific natural number. We're merely saying what class it belongs to.

Similarly, when we say, "Skepdick is a man", we are saying that Skepdick belongs to the class denoted by the word "man". We are not saying that Skepdick is the class denoted by the word "man". Just as we're not saying that he's a specific configuration of atoms in space. We're merely saying what class he belongs to.

As such, "The truth value of P is either true or false" means "The truth value of P belongs to the set that is { true, false }."

It does NOT mean "The truth value of P is the class represented by the set { true, false }."

[Skepdick]

So you don't actually know what equivocation is.

Why are you lying?

And?

You aren't bothered by falsehood? It all makes sense now..

It explains your lying too.

You have to first discover the value of X.

You SAID that "X is either A or B". So it has only two possible values. A; or B!

Since you SAID that "X is either A or B" then it's impossible for X to be C!

Once you do that, you can tell whether or not the statement is a propositional one, and if it is, whether the statement is true or false.

The statement is propositional one! It PROPOSES that A is bivalent!

Either it's value is A
OR
Its value is B.

Were you lying about that?

Again, "neither true nor false" is an oxymoron. And absolutely nothing can be represented by an oxymoron.

Really? So if X doesn't represent A; or B then what does it represent?

"X is either A or B" is neither true nor false.

You wish.

No wishing required. I know that X is either A or B. YOU told me!

Were you lying?