What LEM is not

[Magnus Anderson]

You don't know what you mean when you use the symbol "square-circle"?

You could've just told us your powers of conception are vastly limited.

I know very well what the the term "square-circle" means, it's just that you're either extremely retarded, meaning that it would be extremely hard for me to help you understand what the word "circle" actually means, or you're merely pretending that you are in order to, I don't know, keep this rather dead forum alive or to destroy it even further?

Finally, it's quite off-topic.

[Skepdick]

I know very well what the the term "square-circle" means

So tell us.

, it's just that you're either extremely retarded, meaning that it would be extremely hard for me to help you understand what the word "circle" actually means, or you're merely pretending that you are in order to, I don't know, keep this rather dead forum alive or to destroy it even further?

Finally, it's quite off-topic.

You introduces the term - why did you introduce an off-topic term?

[Magnus Anderson]

Start a separate thread for that stupid claim of yours.

Call it something like, "Square exists! Taxicab geometry proves it!"

Stop shitting in other people's threads.

[Magnus Anderson]

You introduces the term - why did you introduce an off-topic term?

We were already quite off-topic. And explaining to you what the term "square-circle" means, something that pretty much everyone with at least a bit of a brain understands, would just make this thread even more off-topic. That's too much off-topic.

Give it up.

[Skepdick]

You introduces the term - why did you introduce an off-topic term?

We were already quite off-topic. And explaining to you what the term "square-circle" means, something that pretty much everyone with at least a bit of a brain understands, would just make this thread even more off-topic. That's too much off-topic.

Give it up.

Give what up? Pointing out that you are wrong?

No. Fuck you.

[Magnus Anderson]

But any logical conjunction is of this form!!!

let X: = 1.
let Y: = 2
Y is not X
therefore 1 and 2 is exactly of the form "X and not X"

So is 1 and 3.
So is 1 and 4; or 5; or 6...

How much do they pay you to produce idiotic posts as this one?

Are you a human being at all?

[Skepdick]

But any logical conjunction is of this form!!!

let X: = 1.
let Y: = 2
Y is not X
therefore 1 and 2 is exactly of the form "X and not X"

So is 1 and 3.
So is 1 and 4; or 5; or 6...

How much do they pay you to produce idiotic posts as this one?

Are you a human being at all?

Seems your definition of "idiot" amounts to anyone who proves you wrong.

Humans are capable of admitting error. You aren't that type of entity.

[Magnus Anderson]

Give what up? Pointing out that you are wrong?

No. Fuck you.

Okay, you don't have to give me your GPS coordinates, just tell me the name of the mental hospital where you reside.

[Skepdick]

Okay, you don't have to give me your GPS coordinates, just tell me the name of the mental hospital where you reside.

I gave you my GPS coordinates. Within the radius specified there are a number of mental hearlthcare facilities.

You are welcome to convince yourself (via personal examination) that I am not to be found in any of them.

[Magnus Anderson]

Stop spamming.

[Skepdick]

Stop spamming.

Haven't even started.

There's already a spammer in this thread. You.

[Magnus Anderson]

From another thread.

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

1. calling two different things by the same name
2. the use of a particular word/expression in multiple senses

He reaffirmed the same here in this thread:

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

Let's ignore that Septic Dick cannot even distinguish the concept that he just described from the concept of contradiction ( which he doesn't understand either, a thread on its own. )

The concept that he's describing in the above is not that of equivocation.

Do I have to start a thread on equivocation?

Equivocation means using one and the same word in more than one way while acting as if the word is used in only one way.

The underlined part is a necessary condition.

As I said earlier in this thread:

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

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.

Equivocation is a type of non-sequitur.

[Skepdick]

The concept that he's describing in the above is not that of equivocation.

Do I have to start a thread on equivocation?

It's become pertinently obvious that you don't understand either concept. Equivocation; or contradiction.

Equivocation means using one and the same word in more than one way while acting as if the word is used in only one way.

The underlined part is a necessary condition.

It's not a necessary condition. If you know you are using the same word in multiple senses it's trivial to NOT equivocate.

Simply choose another word.

Equivocation is a logical fallacy that occurs when we use one and the same word in two different ways throughout an argument

That's not true. And you get 1000 points for irony. You are equivocating what "equivocation" means!

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

Any use of the same word in two different senses results in an ambiguity.

It has nothing to do with the quality or validity of logical inferences. The equivocation exists in the ambiguous use of language, not in how that language is used in reasoning or argumentation.

You have explicitly claimed that symbols represent meaningful concepts. If you are using the same symbol to represent two different meaningful concepts you are effectively destroying the 1:1 relationship between the representation and the represented.

[Magnus Anderson]

It's become pertinently obvious that you don't understand either concept. Equivocation; or contradiction.

Childish response. "No, I am not wrong, you are!"

It's not a necessary condition.

If you're accusing people of making a logical error, it is. If you're merely accusing them of speaking in a way that can cause confusion, that's a different story and you should say so.

You are equivocating what "equivocation" means!

No, I am simply using the term to refer to a logically fallacy. I have never used it in any other way until this point. So what I've been doing is neither equivocation qua logical fallacy nor equivocation qua confusing shift in meaning.

Any use of the same word in two different senses results in an ambiguity.

It depends. But it does carry more risk in general than using it in one sense.

It has nothing to do with the quality or validity of logical inferences.

Obviously, you are such an ignoramus that you've never heard of the logical fallacy called equivocation.

[Magnus Anderson]

What I've noticed so far -- and it's not only me, many other people have noticed it too over the years -- is that you have a serious trouble understanding what other people are saying.

It's as if you have a serious brain defect that makes you utterly incapable of understanding sentences written in natural language which is why you obsess over formal languages, and more specifically, programming languages.

An example of this -- and there are lots of examples of it -- would be the way you respond to people who say that square-circles do not exist.

Your typical lame ass response is to say that square-circles exist, link to Wikipedia article on taxicab geometry and make a condescending remark that the person lacks imagination.

How much of a brainwreck do you have to be not to understand what people mean by "square" and "circle" when they say "Square-circles do not exist" ?

And if you do understand what they are saying then you are committing the logical fallacy of equivocation by shifting the meaning of the term "square-circle" from standard Euclidean one that most people are familiar with to a taxicab one which only few people are aware of.

It's akin to someone saying "Unicorns do not exist" and you responding with "They do! In my own version of English language, the word 'unicorn' means the same thing as the standard English word 'horse', and since horses exist, it follows that unicorns exist too! So you're wrong!"

It's BEYOND PATHETIC.