What LEM is not

[Skepdick]

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.

Why are you lying?

The qualifier "Euclidian" directly alters the truth-value of the existence statement.

Square circles do exist.
Euclidian square circles don't exist.

How is it that you don't understand that the qualifier "Euclidian" reduces the scope of the claim from a general statement relevant to ALL contexts, to a statement specific to the context of Euclidian geometry? Don't you understand how scoping works?

How is somebody with such pretense of being intelligent so dumb with respect to pragmatics ?!?

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

In linguistics and related fields, pragmatics is the study of how context contributes to meaning.

[Magnus Anderson]

How is it that you don't understand that the qualifier "Euclidian" reduces the scope of the claim from a general statement relevant to ALL contexts, to a statement specific to the context of Euclidian geometry? Don't you understand how scoping works?

How is it that you don't understand that the qualifier "Euclidian" does not reduce the scope of the claim because the claim is not a general one?

It is your own idiocy that makes you think that "Square-circles do not exist" has a general scope meaning "For every possible meaning of the term 'square-circle', square-circles do not exist."

When people say, "The Earth is round", noone is saying "For every possible meaning of the words 'the', 'Earth', 'is' and 'round', the Earth is round."

How stupid do you have to be not to comprehend this?

This is super basic stuff.

How is somebody with such pretense of being intelligent so dumb with respect to pragmatics ?!?

Exactly. The discrepancy between what you think you are and what you really are is so massive it's unbelievable.

[Skepdick]

How is it that you don't understand that the qualifier "Euclidian" does not reduce the scope of the claim because the claim is not a general one?

How is it that you don't understand that you are wrong?

It is your own idiocy that makes you think that "Square-circles do not exist" has a general scope meaning

It's your own idiocy that makes you think that an unscoped statement has a specific scope.

"For every possible meaning of the term 'square-circle', square-circles do not exist."

Contradiction.

The Taxicab geometric meaning is one possible meaning for "square circle".
Taxicab square circles exist.

When people say, "The Earth is round", noone is saying "For every possible meaning of the words 'the', 'Earth', 'is' and 'round', the Earth is round."

Idiot. "The Earth" is a propper noun - it has a specific referent. "square circles" is not. How are you so incompetent at grasping context?!?
"The Earth is round" is NOT an existence claim.

Imagine I told you "The Earth doesn't exist". And then I refused to specify the context.

Oh, did I forget to mention that the context in which this sentence is true is the Andromeda Galaxy.

Exactly. The discrepancy between what you think you are and what you really are is so massive it's unbelievable.

I've already made this pertinently clear. I am the 2nd biggest idiot in any room you are in.

[Magnus Anderson]

How is it that you don't understand that you are wrong?

Yet another childish response.

It's your own idiocy that makes you think that an unscoped statement has a specific scope.

There is no need for a qualifier, Mr. Ignoramus.

Pretty much every word has certain scope. The level of scope varies for different words. Some words are more specific and some are more general.

As an example, the term "natural number" refers to a rather narrow set of numbers that is { 1, 2, 3, ... }. When you put the word "even" in front of "natural number", you merely reduce the existing limited scope to a more limited one that is { 2, 4, 6, ... }.

What you don't understand is that, when people say "Square-circles do not exist", they are very clearly talking about Euclidean square-circles. The fact that they don't call them "Euclidean square-circles" does not change that fact.

You are merely refusing to understand others correctly.

Of course, why would you? How else can you pretend you have a point?

Contradiction.

The Taxicab geometric meaning is one possible meaning for "square circle".
Taxicab square circles exist.

What an idiotic response. Of course the statement is false, you fucking imbecile! The point is that NOONE IS MAKING IT.

Idiot. "The Earth" is a propper noun - it has a specific referent. "square circles" is not.

You're missing the point, moron.

I've already made this pertinently clear. I am the 2nd biggest idiot in any room you are in.

Stop pretending you're humble.

[Skepdick]

Pretty much every word has certain scope. The level of scope varies for different words. Some words are more specific and some are more general.

The non-existence qualifier isn't one of those.

As an example, the term "natural number" refers to a rather narrow set of numbers that is { 1, 2, 3, ... }. When you put the word "even" in front of "natural number", you merely reduce the existing limited scope to a more limited one that is { 2, 4, 6, ... }.

Tell me genius, is the claim "there exist no numbers between 1 and 2" true or false?

What you don't understand is that, when people say "Square-circles do not exist", they are very clearly talking about Euclidean square-circles. The fact that they don't call them "Euclidean square-circles" does not change that fact.

Oh really. So why did you call them "natural" numbers, and not just "numbers"?

You are merely refusing to understand others correctly.

I don't know how to understand you correctly when you are incorrect.

What an idiotic response. Of course the statement is false, you fucking imbecile! The point is that NOONE IS MAKING IT.

You made it, genius. You claimed that something DOES NOT EXIST. Without providing the scope of your claim.

Well, guess what? The Earth doesn't exist! In some implic context.

[Magnus Anderson]

Imagine I told you "The Earth doesn't exist". And then I refused to specify the context.

Oh, did I forget to mention that the context in which this sentence is true is the Andromeda Galaxy.

Generally, statements of the form "X does not exist" mean "X does not exist anywhere in the universe." It's implicit. If you want to say that X does not exist within some specific region of the universe, you have to specify that region. Otherwise, it will be understood that you're saying that X does not exist anywhere within the universe.

When we say "Square-circles do not exist", we are saying that they are an impossible form of existence. We are not merely saying that they do not exist anywhere in the universe at the present time. We are also not merely saying that they never existed and that they will never exist. We're saying it's IMPOSSIBLE for them to exist. Zero possibility of existence. This is because the term "square-circle" is an oxymoron. Given that nothing can be represented by an oxymoron, since nothing can meet the impossible demand of being two different things at the same time, it follows that square-circles are an impossibility.

Taxicab square-circles aren't really square-circles. They are squares. They are square-circles only in name. Someone decided to call them circles by taking the existing definition of the word "circle" and redefining it. Blame it on them.

All of this is just an elaborate game of verbal manipulation, deception and sophistry.

You can make any statement true or false by redefining words.

I can make the statement "Unicorns do not exist" false by redefining the term "unicorn" to mean "horse". Then, I can simply say, in the same exact stupid way that you do, that in MY language, unicorns do not exist! Thus, the statement "Unicorns do not exist" is FALSE! "Wow! What a revelation! I can't believe how smart I am! Even though I just decided to misinterpret the other side and strawman them by redefining their words!"

I can also make the statement "The Earth is round" false by redefining the term "Earth" to mean "Joe Biden". Then, I can simply say, in the same exact stupid way that you do, that in MY language, the Earth is not round! Thus, the statement "The Earth is round" is not true! But it's also not false! It's neither true nor false! It depends on the context! It's an open statement with free variables all over the place. It becomes true or false only once each variable is assigned a value! So stop lying to people that the Earth is round! IT IS NOT! IT SIMPLY IS NOT! BLAH BLAH BLAH! I AM A SKEPDICK AND I AM A FUCKING IMBECILE WITH AN EGO LARGER THAN THE LARGEST SUPERCLUSTER!

[Magnus Anderson]

I don't know how to understand you correctly when you are incorrect.

Yet another idiotic response. So if someone is incorrect, you can't understand them correctly?

[Magnus Anderson]

You made it, genius. You claimed that something DOES NOT EXIST. Without providing the scope of your claim.

That's your own delusion. You not seeing the scope does not mean the scope isn't there.

Guy, if you don't bother to make a serious effort to understand what other people are saying, you will forever be stuck in your own head together with your stupid little Python scripts that you write yourself. And that's precisely what has been taking place for years. Dumb people think that it's enough, and even a triumph, to simply be stubborn and not listen to anyone. You belong to that category. And that's why you never learn anything. For years, you've been peddling these childishly idiotic ideas of yours. The style of your conversation, and in general the way you interact with others, is optimized to PRESERVE your existing beliefs -- your religion -- rather than to LEARN.

You earned the status of a court jester, sort of like how Norman Boutin did. Enjoy it.

[Skepdick]

Generally, statements of the form "X does not exist" mean "X does not exist anywhere in the universe." It's implicit.
If you want to say that X does not exist within some specific region of the universe, you have to specify that region. Otherwise, it will be understood that you're saying that X does not exist anywhere within the universe.

That's what I said, you idiot. Hence me pointing out the lack of scope on your non-existence claim.

If you don't specify a scope for "square circles don't exist" that means they don't exist ANYWHERE.

... it follows that square-circles are an impossibility.

They are not an impossibility. The exact context in which they exist was explained to you.

Taxicab square-circles aren't really square-circles. They are squares.

The distance from the center to the perimeter is consistent. That's a radius. Euclidian squares don't have a radius. This square has a radius.

Exactly like a circle.

They are square-circles only in name. Someone decided to call them circles by taking the existing definition of the word "circle" and redefining it. Blame it on them.

There's no re-definition. It's a shape which has its perimeter equidistant from a centre.

[Skepdick]

That's your own delusion. You not seeing the scope does not mean the scope isn't there.

Generally, statements of the form "X does not exist" mean "X does not exist anywhere in the universe." It's implicit. If you want to say that X does not exist within some specific region of the universe, you have to specify that region. Otherwise, it will be understood that you're saying that X does not exist anywhere within the universe.

Contradiction.

If "X does not exists means "X doesn't exist anywhere in the universe" then "square circles don't exist" means "square circles don't exist anywhere in the universe".

It can't possibly mean "square circles don't exist in Euclidian geometry.

[Magnus Anderson]

That's what I said, you idiot.

Did you? Exactly where?

They are not an impossibility. The exact context in which they exist was explained to you.

But they ARE an impossibility, imbecile. You are merely refusing to understand what other people are saying.

Again, when they say "square circle", they are referring to what you call "Euclidean square circles". End of story.

And if you AGREE that Euclidean square circles do not exist, it follows that you agree that square circles do not exist.

All you're doing is misinterpreting others ( and you probably enjoy it that way because it creates the illusion of you being superior to others. )

LET ME SPIT IN YOUR FACE ONE MORE TIME.

If I say "Unicorns do not exist" where by "unicorn" I mean "a horse with a straight horn on its forehead" and then you come along and tell me that what I'm saying is not true because IN A DIFFERENT CONTEXT THAT IS YOUR OWN STUPID LANGUAGE the word "unicorn" simply means a horse, with or without a horn, you would be a complete and utter idiot.

That's EXACTLY what you're doing here. You're merely not seeing it. Too busy defending your bullshit ideas. Too stuck in your stupid head. Too much of a wannabe thinker.

If you don't specify a scope for "square circles don't exist" that means they don't exist ANYWHERE.

It means that square circles have zero possibility of existence anywhere and at any time.

And that's true.

Your lame ass taxicab square circles aren't really square circles. They are square circles only in name.

Listen to what people are saying, you self-centered narcissistic jerk, instead of constantly misinterpreting them by pretending that they are speaking in your own stupid version of English language where the term "square circle" can be used to refer to both Euclidean and texicab square circles.

The distance from the center to the perimeter is consistent. That's a radius. Euclidian squares don't have a radius. This square has a radius.

Exactly like a circle.

Yes. And horses are exactly like unicorns except they don't have a straight horn on their forehead. Therefore, horses are unicorns which means unicorns exist.

Smart guy this Skepdick guy. Brilliant logik.

There's no re-definition. It's a shape which has its perimeter equidistant from a centre.

There very much is. You're just too stupid to see it. Too subtle for your crude simplistic idiotic literalist mind.

Your problem consists in treating concepts as less specific than they actually are.

Contradiction.

If "X does not exists means "X doesn't exist anywhere in the universe" then "square circles don't exist" means "square circles don't exist anywhere in the universe".

It can't possibly mean "square circles don't exist in Euclidian geometry.

That's your own misreading of what I wrote.

There are no square circles in taxicab geometry, clown. There are merely shapes that are CALLED square circles. These shapes are NOT square circles. They are NOT Euclidean square circles. Get it inside your stupid head.

It's like arguing that you're a member of ILovePhilosophy.com forum merely because someone decided to post under your stupid username.

[Magnus Anderson]

A taxicab square circle is actually a diamond.

Some people are blind, obviously, and think that this is a circle.



But then again, we're dealing with someone who thinks that unicorns exist.

[Gary Childress]

Godel meets Russell, Chomsky meets Foucault, Dionysian meets Apollonian: Iconoclasm wouldn't exist were it not for icons. But it doesn't seem that icons wouldn't exist without iconoclasm. And when an iconoclast becomes an icon, do former icons become iconoclasts or do iconoclasts not become icons? Constuction meets deconstruction, rules meet anarchy, and they cancel each other out like matter and antimatter. But is one better than the other? And if so, which one and why?

[Impenitent]

Godel meets Russell, Chomsky meets Foucault, Dionysian meets Apollonian: Iconoclasm wouldn't exist were it not for icons. But it doesn't seem that icons wouldn't exist without iconoclasm. And when an iconoclast becomes an icon, do former icons become iconoclasts or do iconoclasts not become icons? Constuction meets deconstruction, rules meet anarchy, and they cancel each other out like matter and antimatter. But is one better than the other? And if so, which one and why?

locomotion moves faster

-Imp

[Gary Childress]

Godel meets Russell, Chomsky meets Foucault, Dionysian meets Apollonian: Iconoclasm wouldn't exist were it not for icons. But it doesn't seem that icons wouldn't exist without iconoclasm. And when an iconoclast becomes an icon, do former icons become iconoclasts or do iconoclasts not become icons? Constuction meets deconstruction, rules meet anarchy, and they cancel each other out like matter and antimatter. But is one better than the other? And if so, which one and why?

locomotion moves faster

-Imp

Than?