What LEM is not

[Skepdick]

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.

You just set the world record for irony.

You can't even understand this. It's in plain fucking English.

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

Please show us where logic is mentioned.

[Skepdick]

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.

The statement "square-circle" makes NO geometry explicit. Why the fuck are you assuming Euclidian geometry as "standard" in a non-Euclidian universe ?!?

Why are you assuming ANY geometry if you don't know which geometry holds in the universe we find ourselves in?

Are you stupid; or yes?

[Magnus Anderson]

You just set the world record for irony.

You can't even understand this. It's in plain fucking English.

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

Please show us where logic is mentioned.

Do you remember when I asked you to define the word "equivocation" and you linked to Wikipedia?

Have you ever read that article?

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.[1][2]

Right at the start, it says "In logic". Do you see the word LOGIC? Then it says that equivocation is an INFORMAL FALLACY that RESULTS from the use of a particular word or expression in multiple sense within an ARGUMENT.

Can you read?

Then the article proceeds to give an example in the form of a syllogism.

[Magnus Anderson]

The statement "square-circle" makes NO geometry explicit.

It does not have to be explicit. It is implicit. In the same exact way that the meaning of each word in the statement is implicit. The standard definitions of the word "square" and "circle" that pretty much EVERYONE works with are Euclidean ones.

The statement is NOT an open one. The words "square" and "circle" are not variables that can be assigned a range of values. They are CONSTANTS that have SPECIFIC meanings.

Why the fuck are you assuming Euclidian geometry as "standard" in a non-Euclidian universe ?!?

Noone is assuming anything and whether the universe is Euclidean or nnn-Euclidean is irrelevant.

Don't be so embarrassingly stupid.

If I say that unicorns do not exist, it does not follow that I'm assuming that unicorns exist.

[Skepdick]

You just set the world record for irony.

You can't even understand this. It's in plain fucking English.

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

Please show us where logic is mentioned.

Do you remember when I asked you to define the word "equivocation" and you linked to Wikipedia?

Have you ever read that article?

Do you remember me posting the Oxford definition side by side with the Wikipedia page?

Is there a reason you are cherry-picking one and ignoring the other?

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.[1][2]

Right at the start, it says "In logic". Do you see the word LOGIC? Then it says that equivocation is an INFORMAL FALLACY that RESULTS from the use of a particular word or expression in multiple sense within an ARGUMENT.

Can you read?

Then the article proceeds to give an example in the form of a syllogism.

Do you need me to pull out the crayons for you so that you can spot the commonality between equivocations IN GENERAL; and equivocations IN LOGIC?

It's right there for you "calling two different things by the same name"

Here, let me help you... https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

Equivocation is calling two different things by the same name.

It results from using a word in two or more senses in the same argument.

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

[Skepdick]

You are the undisputed irony world champion...

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 BEYOND PATHETIC.

[Magnus Anderson]

Is there a reason you are cherry-picking one and ignoring the other?

You're the one doing the cherry-picking. You're the one acting as if the logical fallacy that is equivocation does not exist.

You wanted me to show you where the word "logic" is mentioned. I showed you.

You got spanked.

As I said, the word is used in at least two different ways: as a logical error and as a confusing shift in meaning.

Do you need me to pull out the crayons for you so that you can spot the commonality between equivocations IN GENERAL; and equivocations IN LOGIC?

It's right there for you "calling two different things by the same name"

How about you listen to what your interlocutor is saying instead of constantly making a fool out of yourself and turning a blind eye to it by stubbornly denying it?

[Skepdick]

You're the one doing the cherry-picking. You're the one acting as if the logical fallacy that is equivocation does not exist.

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 BEYOND PATHETIC.

You wanted me to show you where the word "logic" is mentioned. I showed you.

You got spanked

Yes, please show me the word logic in the Oxford definition

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

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 BEYOND PATHETIC.

As I said, the word is used in at least two different ways: as a logical error and as a confusing shift in meaning.

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 BEYOND PATHETIC.

How about you listen to what your interlocutor is saying instead of constantly making a fool out of yourself and turning a blind eye to it by stubbornly denying it?

How about that?

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 BEYOND PATHETIC.

[Magnus Anderson]

Yes, please show me the word logic in the Oxford definition

Dumb request. Other sources very clearly indicate that the word is also used for a particular type of logical mistake.

[Skepdick]

Yes, please show me the word logic in the Oxford definition

Dumb request. Other sources very clearly indicate that the word is also used for a particular type of logical mistake.

Yes, please show us where the source "very clearly indicates" that.

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

[Magnus Anderson]

Yes, please show us where the source "very clearly indicates" that.

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

That source tells us that equivocation is not merely the use of ambiguous language ( as you claim ) but the use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself. Mind you, it does not say it's a logical fallacy, that much is true.

What's your point? You want to deny that people use the word "equivocation" to refer to a logical fallacy that results as a consequence of using one and the same word in more than one way?

[Magnus Anderson]

The statement "square-circle" makes NO geometry explicit.

It does not have to be explicit. It is implicit. In the same exact way that the meaning of each word in the statement is implicit. The standard definitions of the word "square" and "circle" that pretty much EVERYONE works with are Euclidean ones.

The statement is NOT an open one. The words "square" and "circle" are not variables that can be assigned a range of values. They are CONSTANTS that have SPECIFIC meanings.

Why the fuck are you assuming Euclidian geometry as "standard" in a non-Euclidian universe ?!?

Noone is assuming anything and whether the universe is Euclidean or nnn-Euclidean is irrelevant.

Don't be so embarrassingly stupid.

If I say that unicorns do not exist, it does not follow that I'm assuming that unicorns exist.

How about you respond to this post instead of ignoring it?

[Skepdick]

You want to deny that people use the word "equivocation" to refer to a logical fallacy that results as a consequence of using one and the same word in more than one way?

Who are these imaginary people you are refering to? In context of this interaction I used the word "equivocation" to refer to your equivocation.

[Skepdick]

It does not have to be explicit. It is implicit. In the same exact way that the meaning of each word in the statement is implicit. The standard definitions of the word "square" and "circle" that pretty much EVERYONE works with are Euclidean ones.

You are implicitly using an Euclidian geometry in a non-euclidian universe?

Congratulations. That's a context error.

The statement is NOT an open one. The words "square" and "circle" are not variables that can be assigned a range of values. They are CONSTANTS that have SPECIFIC meanings.

OK. So you are using a closed statement in context of the wrong geometry.

That's a conceptual error.

Noone is assuming anything and whether the universe is Euclidean or nnn-Euclidean is irrelevant.

Don't be so embarrassingly stupid.

Contradiction. If you are IMPLICITLY operating in an Euclidian geometry you are assuming Euclidian geometry as "standard".

In a universe that is NON-euclidian.

On what grounds?

If I say that unicorns do not exist, it does not follow that I'm assuming that unicorns exist.

Non-sequitur. Is that a geometric claim? Geometric unicorns exist. What's wrong withy you

[Magnus Anderson]

Words mean what they mean regardless of whether there is anything in the universe that can be represented by them.

The word "unicorn" means "a horse with a straight horn on its forehead" even though no such horses exist.

Thus, whether or not the universe is Euclidean is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.

You are merely distracting yourself from the fact that YOU COMPLETELY MISUNDERSTOOD WHAT PEOPLE ARE SAYING WHEN THEY CLAIM THAT SQUARE-CIRCLES DO NOT EXIST.

You are a FUCKING RETARD.

COMPLETE AND UTTER WRETCH OF AN INDIVIDUAL.

If you are IMPLICITLY operating in an Euclidian geometry you are assuming Euclidian geometry as "standard".

This is neither true nor relevant, imbecile.

When John says that "Square-circles do not exist", he is saying that Euclidean square-circles do not exist and nothing more. And that's either true or false. And unfortunately for you, it just happens to be true. The term "square-circle" is an oxymoron and absolutely nothing in the universe can be represented by an oxymoron since nothing can meet the impossible demand of being two different things at the same time.

John may or may not believe the universe is Euclidean but it most definitely does not follow that he does. And even if he does, his claim is still true AND YOU'RE MERELY DISTRACTING YOURSELF BECAUSE YOU'RE A MORON.

Non-sequitur. Is that a geometric claim? Geometric unicorns exist. What's wrong withy you

Septic Dick, the Norman Boutin of philosophy.