Negation of Classical Identity Laws Using Classical Identity Laws.

[Eodnhoj7]

How can I tell what? That statements #1 and #2 (which he made in the post above mine) are false? Are you saying they aren't false?

If you want an answer then answer the question:

Does A=/=-A require A=A and -A=-A?

Perhaps it does. I don't have the logic skills anymore to run it through symbolic or predicate logic. But what the OP is saying seems to be that if A does not = (not the case A) [the law of non-contradiction] and at the same time A = A [the law of identity], that there is some kind of contradiction there between those two axioms. Do you see the contradiction? I don't.

It is a simple yes or no. If you cannot answer that than you cannot comment by your own logic as your standards are "perhaps".

[Gary Childress]

If you want an answer then answer the question:

Does A=/=-A require A=A and -A=-A?

Perhaps it does. I don't have the logic skills anymore to run it through symbolic or predicate logic. But what the OP is saying seems to be that if A does not = (not the case A) [the law of non-contradiction] and at the same time A = A [the law of identity], that there is some kind of contradiction there between those two axioms. Do you see the contradiction? I don't.

It is a simple yes or no. If you cannot answer that than you cannot comment by your own logic as your standards are "perhaps".

Fair enough. Thinking further about it, yes. In order for A to not equal not the case A (the law of non-contradiction), then the law of identity needs to exist. Because A needs to be itself in order not to equal not the case itself. Is there a contradiction or something in that? Is there a problem with the existence of both the law of identity and the law of non-contradiction? Or are you saying something else that I'm just not understanding?

[Eodnhoj7]

Perhaps it does. I don't have the logic skills anymore to run it through symbolic or predicate logic. But what the OP is saying seems to be that if A does not = (not the case A) [the law of non-contradiction] and at the same time A = A [the law of identity], that there is some kind of contradiction there between those two axioms. Do you see the contradiction? I don't.

It is a simple yes or no. If you cannot answer that than you cannot comment by your own logic as your standards are "perhaps".

Fair enough. Thinking further about it, yes. In order for A to not equal not the case A (the law of non-contradiction), then the law of identity needs to exist. Because A needs to be itself in order not to equal not the case itself. Is there a contradiction or something in that? Is there a problem with the existence of both the law of identity and the law of non-contradiction? Or are you saying something else that I'm just not understanding?

So LNC can be expressed as (A=A)=/=(-A=-A).

A=A and -A=-A are both LI and LI is equality.

So if the variables are removed what remains is:

(=)=/=(=).....Equality does not equal equality.

[Gary Childress]

It is a simple yes or no. If you cannot answer that than you cannot comment by your own logic as your standards are "perhaps".

Fair enough. Thinking further about it, yes. In order for A to not equal not the case A (the law of non-contradiction), then the law of identity needs to exist. Because A needs to be itself in order not to equal not the case itself. Is there a contradiction or something in that? Is there a problem with the existence of both the law of identity and the law of non-contradiction? Or are you saying something else that I'm just not understanding?

So LNC can be expressed as (A=A)=/=(-A=-A).

A=A and -A=-A are both LI and LI is equality.

So if the variables are removed what remains is:

(=)=/=(=).....Equality does not equal equality.

Why would you want to remove the variables (which stand for values)? I don't think logic reduces in that manner. Logic has strict rules about what can be safely withdrawn from an equation while keeping the equation logically coherent. Math has the same thing. If I say (mathematically) 1=1 does not equal non 1 = non 1, and then I remove the values and leave the operators, I would end up with (=) does not equal (=). There's no point doing that in math, and I'm not sure there's a point to doing it in logic.

[Eodnhoj7]

Fair enough. Thinking further about it, yes. In order for A to not equal not the case A (the law of non-contradiction), then the law of identity needs to exist. Because A needs to be itself in order not to equal not the case itself. Is there a contradiction or something in that? Is there a problem with the existence of both the law of identity and the law of non-contradiction? Or are you saying something else that I'm just not understanding?

So LNC can be expressed as (A=A)=/=(-A=-A).

A=A and -A=-A are both LI and LI is equality.

So if the variables are removed what remains is:

(=)=/=(=).....Equality does not equal equality.

Why would you want to remove the variables (which stand for values)? I don't think logic reduces in that manner. Logic has strict rules about what can be safely withdrawn from an equation while keeping the equation logically coherent. Math has the same thing. If I say (mathematically) 1=1 does not equal non 1 = non 1, and then I remove the values and leave the operators, I would end up with (=) does not equal (=). There's no point doing that in math, and I'm not sure there's a point to doing it in logic.

Is the law of identity grounded in the process of equivocation?

[Gary Childress]

So LNC can be expressed as (A=A)=/=(-A=-A).

A=A and -A=-A are both LI and LI is equality.

So if the variables are removed what remains is:

(=)=/=(=).....Equality does not equal equality.

Why would you want to remove the variables (which stand for values)? I don't think logic reduces in that manner. Logic has strict rules about what can be safely withdrawn from an equation while keeping the equation logically coherent. Math has the same thing. If I say (mathematically) 1=1 does not equal non 1 = non 1, and then I remove the values and leave the operators, I would end up with (=) does not equal (=). There's no point doing that in math, and I'm not sure there's a point to doing it in logic.

Is the law of identity grounded in the process of equivocation?

Well A=A reduces to just A. not the case A=not the case A reduces to just not the case A. The statement: (A) (does not =) (not the case A) is true. There's no contradiction there. Are you sure you're making a "legal" alteration to your equation according to the rules of logic? It sounds like gibberish. What does "grounding the law of identity in the process of equivocation" mean?

[Eodnhoj7]

Why would you want to remove the variables (which stand for values)? I don't think logic reduces in that manner. Logic has strict rules about what can be safely withdrawn from an equation while keeping the equation logically coherent. Math has the same thing. If I say (mathematically) 1=1 does not equal non 1 = non 1, and then I remove the values and leave the operators, I would end up with (=) does not equal (=). There's no point doing that in math, and I'm not sure there's a point to doing it in logic.

Is the law of identity grounded in the process of equivocation?

Well A=A reduces to just A. not the case A=not the case A reduces to just not the case A. The statement: (A) (does not =) (not the case A) is true. There's no contradiction there. Are you sure you're making a "legal" alteration to your equation according to the rules of logic? It sounds like gibberish. What does "grounding the law of identity in the process of equivocation" mean?

A reduces to A=A if it is to have identity under the law. A is not identity under LI, A=A is. The identity is the process of equivocation as equality occurs across A=A, B=B, C=C,....-A=-A, -B=-B, -C=-C.

What remains is the process of equality as identity, this is scale invariant, it exists across scales.

[Gary Childress]

Is the law of identity grounded in the process of equivocation?

Well A=A reduces to just A. not the case A=not the case A reduces to just not the case A. The statement: (A) (does not =) (not the case A) is true. There's no contradiction there. Are you sure you're making a "legal" alteration to your equation according to the rules of logic? It sounds like gibberish. What does "grounding the law of identity in the process of equivocation" mean?

A reduces to A=A if it is to have identity under the law. A is not identity under LI, A=A is. The identity is the process of equivocation as equality occurs across A=A, B=B, C=C,....-A=-A, -B=-B, -C=-C.

What remains is the process of equality as identity, this is scale invariant, it exists across scales.

A does not "reduce" to A=A. It is "predicated" on the assumption that A=A. A=A is the longer way of expressing A. Would you say that 2 "reduces" to 1+1? I honestly see what looks like gibberish. As I stated, I'm rusty at symbolic logic. Though I did exceptionally well in the course, it has been a long time without ever using it for me so it's almost "Greek" to me at this point. I question whether you have studied any logic and if so, did the professor tell you that (A=A)=/=(-A=-A) can be "reduced" to (=)=/=(=)?

[thomyum2]

If the second step is an error than -P is not an identity and cannot be asserted as an identity in the law of non-contradiction.

I don't know what you mean by this. The law of identity and the law of non-contradiction are two different things. The law of non-contradiction asserts nothing about identity.

The law of identity only applies to singular terms. As per my, and Inpenitent's, examples, 'not P' (assuming that's what you mean by '-P') is not a singular term because 'not P' encompasses any number of things which are not identical to P. So (-P=-P) does not correctly represent the law of identity as you have stated in the second step.

If the law of non-contradiction asserts nothing about identity then A=/=-A requires A and -A as having no identities thus there is no LNC.

LNC requires A=A and -A=-A if A=/=-A where at the meta level it is revealed as (A=A)=/=(-A=-A)....which also simultaneously points out the LI is not equal to itself.

Also if LNC is to have identity it is subject to LI as LNC = LNC, but previously it was shown the LI =/= LI under the context of LNC.

The laws consume themselves.

I don't know what it means for laws to 'consume themselves'. They can certainly be manipulated to produce contradictions, but that's true of just about anything.

The LNC is a law about propositions. The LI is a law about things. They aren't interchangeable.

Moreover, both of the laws deal with logic as applied to ordinary language, not to mathematics. For example, it is nonsensical to say that 'the LI is not equal to itself' because 'equal' is a relationship of numerically measurable properties such as size, weight, quantity, etc. The LI has no numeric properties.

Honestly, I do not follow what you are arguing at all. My impression is that because you have not property defined your variables, you are using them equivocally, the same variable in one equation to represent one concept and in other equation to represent an entirely different concept, which creates 4-term fallacies. On top of that, you seem to be applying mathematical operators to draw conclusions about variables that do not represent numbers. Logic governing reasoning in ordinary language is not interchangeable with that of mathematics. This seems to me to be just a big, logical mess. Just as you yourself said earlier: "Anyone can claim "right" or "wrong". No definition behind it just leaves a tautology." If you would go back and clearly define all of your symbols and variables, then maybe this could be more understandable.

[Eodnhoj7]

I don't know what you mean by this. The law of identity and the law of non-contradiction are two different things. The law of non-contradiction asserts nothing about identity.

The law of identity only applies to singular terms. As per my, and Inpenitent's, examples, 'not P' (assuming that's what you mean by '-P') is not a singular term because 'not P' encompasses any number of things which are not identical to P. So (-P=-P) does not correctly represent the law of identity as you have stated in the second step.

If the law of non-contradiction asserts nothing about identity then A=/=-A requires A and -A as having no identities thus there is no LNC.

LNC requires A=A and -A=-A if A=/=-A where at the meta level it is revealed as (A=A)=/=(-A=-A)....which also simultaneously points out the LI is not equal to itself.

Also if LNC is to have identity it is subject to LI as LNC = LNC, but previously it was shown the LI =/= LI under the context of LNC.

The laws consume themselves.

I don't know what it means for laws to 'consume themselves'. They can certainly be manipulated to produce contradictions, but that's true of just about anything.

The LNC is a law about propositions. The LI is a law about things. They aren't interchangeable.

Moreover, both of the laws deal with logic as applied to ordinary language, not to mathematics. For example, it is nonsensical to say that 'the LI is not equal to itself' because 'equal' is a relationship of numerically measurable properties such as size, weight, quantity, etc. The LI has no numeric properties.

Honestly, I do not follow what you are arguing at all. My impression is that because you have not property defined your variables, you are using them equivocally, the same variable in one equation to represent one concept and in other equation to represent an entirely different concept, which creates 4-term fallacies. On top of that, you seem to be applying mathematical operators to draw conclusions about variables that do not represent numbers. Logic governing reasoning in ordinary language is not interchangeable with that of mathematics. This seems to me to be just a big, logical mess. Just as you yourself said earlier: "Anyone can claim "right" or "wrong". No definition behind it just leaves a tautology." If you would go back and clearly define all of your symbols and variables, then maybe this could be more understandable.

So if that is the case a proposition, as a thing, has no identity.

[Eodnhoj7]

Well A=A reduces to just A. not the case A=not the case A reduces to just not the case A. The statement: (A) (does not =) (not the case A) is true. There's no contradiction there. Are you sure you're making a "legal" alteration to your equation according to the rules of logic? It sounds like gibberish. What does "grounding the law of identity in the process of equivocation" mean?

A reduces to A=A if it is to have identity under the law. A is not identity under LI, A=A is. The identity is the process of equivocation as equality occurs across A=A, B=B, C=C,....-A=-A, -B=-B, -C=-C.

What remains is the process of equality as identity, this is scale invariant, it exists across scales.

A does not "reduce" to A=A. It is "predicated" on the assumption that A=A. A=A is the longer way of expressing A. Would you say that 2 "reduces" to 1+1? I honestly see what looks like gibberish. As I stated, I'm rusty at symbolic logic. Though I did exceptionally well in the course, it has been a long time without ever using it for me so it's almost "Greek" to me at this point. I question whether you have studied any logic and if so, did the professor tell you that (A=A)=/=(-A=-A) can be "reduced" to (=)=/=(=)?

Prediction is subject to LI, if not then it has no identity.

Equality is subject to identity laws, if it does not then it has no identity.

[Gary Childress]

A reduces to A=A if it is to have identity under the law. A is not identity under LI, A=A is. The identity is the process of equivocation as equality occurs across A=A, B=B, C=C,....-A=-A, -B=-B, -C=-C.

What remains is the process of equality as identity, this is scale invariant, it exists across scales.

A does not "reduce" to A=A. It is "predicated" on the assumption that A=A. A=A is the longer way of expressing A. Would you say that 2 "reduces" to 1+1? I honestly see what looks like gibberish. As I stated, I'm rusty at symbolic logic. Though I did exceptionally well in the course, it has been a long time without ever using it for me so it's almost "Greek" to me at this point. I question whether you have studied any logic and if so, did the professor tell you that (A=A)=/=(-A=-A) can be "reduced" to (=)=/=(=)?

Prediction is subject to LI, if not then it has no identity.

Equality is subject to identity laws, if it does not then it has no identity.

LI only says that predication is predication and equality is equality it does not follow that equality has no identity. Your "reduction" of (A=A)=/=(-A=-A) to (=)=/=(=) is not a valid logical operation according to logic. It can't be done according to the laws of logic. You don't seem to know anything about logic. But you're going to spread this nonsense with you for the rest of your life until you find some people who will believe your misinformation. Good work. The world is a little worse off with you in it.

https://chatgpt.com/share/6a2e287e-699c ... 0ac9de0836

[Eodnhoj7]

A does not "reduce" to A=A. It is "predicated" on the assumption that A=A. A=A is the longer way of expressing A. Would you say that 2 "reduces" to 1+1? I honestly see what looks like gibberish. As I stated, I'm rusty at symbolic logic. Though I did exceptionally well in the course, it has been a long time without ever using it for me so it's almost "Greek" to me at this point. I question whether you have studied any logic and if so, did the professor tell you that (A=A)=/=(-A=-A) can be "reduced" to (=)=/=(=)?

Prediction is subject to LI, if not then it has no identity.

Equality is subject to identity laws, if it does not then it has no identity.

LI only says that predication is predication and equality is equality it does not follow that equality has no identity. Your "reduction" of (A=A)=/=(-A=-A) to (=)=/=(=) is not a valid logical operation according to logic. It can't be done according to the laws of logic. You don't seem to know anything about logic. But you're going to spread this nonsense with you for the rest of your life until you find some people who will believe your misinformation. Good work. The world is a little worse off with you in it.

https://chatgpt.com/share/6a2e287e-699c ... 0ac9de0836

I never said equality has no identity. I said equality requires LI and LI applied to itself is self-negating. There is identity in contrasting distinctions....but that is not classical logic.

As to the rest....

Which logic? Because the laws applied to the laws is the logic of recursion theory. Godel used recursion to prove incompleteness. The recursion used in the text only proves your assertions have no foundations but fallacious bandwagon assumptions.

So wishing me ill maps as being logical by what standard that is not assumed on your part?

[Gary Childress]

Prediction is subject to LI, if not then it has no identity.

Equality is subject to identity laws, if it does not then it has no identity.

LI only says that predication is predication and equality is equality it does not follow that equality has no identity. Your "reduction" of (A=A)=/=(-A=-A) to (=)=/=(=) is not a valid logical operation according to logic. It can't be done according to the laws of logic. You don't seem to know anything about logic. But you're going to spread this nonsense with you for the rest of your life until you find some people who will believe your misinformation. Good work. The world is a little worse off with you in it.

https://chatgpt.com/share/6a2e287e-699c ... 0ac9de0836

I never said equality has no identity. I said equality requires LI and LI applied to itself is self-negating. There is identity in contrasting distinctions....but that is not classical logic.

As to the rest....

Which logic? Because the laws applied to the laws is the logic of recursion theory. Godel used recursion to prove incompleteness. The recursion used in the text only proves your assertions have no foundations but fallacious bandwagon assumptions.

So wishing me ill maps as being logical by what standard that is not assumed on your part?

The law of identity applied to itself is: "the law of identity = the law of identity". Where's the problem with that statement? How does that "negate" itself?

https://chatgpt.com/share/6a2e35a9-5384 ... 52e876ff02

[Gary Childress]

So wishing me ill maps as being logical by what standard that is not assumed on your part?

You're spreading misinformation and not listening at all to people trying to point out where you're wrong. Misinformation makes the world a little worse off, one misinformer at a time. If you don't agree with that, then you're probably not alone anyway. Most people who perpetually create dysfunction in the world don't care that they do it. Or they would stop doing it.

But don't worry, I take up space and turn resources into waste products constantly. In a world of 8 billion people doing that, I make the world a little worse off, too. However, there's not much you or I can reasonably do about creating waste and taking up space; you, on the other hand, can reasonably do something about producing misinformation.