Negation of Classical Identity Laws Using Classical Identity Laws.

[Eodnhoj7]

"Different scales"? Gibberish, not logic, my friend. I'm sorry to inform you that your argument is neither valid nor sound. If (=) =/= (=), then you cannot prove the very first statement that (A=A) = LI. If you think logic is broken, then you'd better find a way to fix your predicament if you want to argue anything logically. Until then, you may as well twiddle your thumbs.

A line segment within a line segment are but scales of a line segment. One line segment is equal to another, as a line segment, but different in scale.

You claim gibberish and yet you claimed LI is not A=A, you have no foundations by your own standards. The gibberish is not what is claimed by me, it is what you assert by your own standards as you have no coherent defintion but vague bandwagon "common sense".

You're using words that don't = themselves again to assert something. If (=) (=/=) (=), then nothing you say refers to itself. You may as well gurgle water instead of discussing logic. I've said before that the Li = Li. So I don't see how I have that problem. (=) = (=) is common sense. If you don't think it does, then there's something wrong with your common sense. So I'll ask again, does (=) =/= (=)? Let me know if you still believe that.

I covered this before, but given you run off of emotion over reason, here it is again:

1. A line segment within a line segment are but scales of a line segment. In these respects A=A.

2. One line segment is equal to another, as a line segment, but different in scale. In these respects A=/=A.

By degree equality is context, and the identity of the context is the relation of the context itself. What repeats within a context is equal, what does not repeat is not equal.

A=/=A observes a line segment not equal to another line segment by degree of scale. One cat does not equal another.

A=A observes line segments equal as a line segment. Two different cats are equal as cats.

You are focused on a pure A=/=A, which derives (=)=/=(=), when the identity of A=A, which derives (=)=(=), is dually necessary for identity through contrast. Contrast allows for identity by distinction. Thus by default (=)=/=(=) observes each respective (=) gaining identity by degree of not being the other (=).

This is a variation of what is called paraconsistent logic.

But please go on rambling.


Logic can be measured typographical, geometrically, as the proof of identity can be observed in simple line segments. Thus you cannot argue over language given simple space reveals these properties.

[Skepdick]

Negation of Classical Identity Laws Using Classical Identity Laws.

Negation is ill-defined - it lacks well-behaved semantics. Said simply: negation is meaningless.

[Eodnhoj7]

Negation of Classical Identity Laws Using Classical Identity Laws.

Negation is ill-defined - it lacks well-behaved semantics. Said simply: negation is meaningless.

"The lack of well-behaved semantics" is a negation hence you are speaking less about negation, as you are using it, and more about the limits of your own language.

[Skepdick]

"The lack of well-behaved semantics" is a negation hence you are speaking less about negation, as you are using it, and more about the limits of your own language.

That's false. Negation is absent in that expression.

You are translating my expression into a negated paraphrase, then using features of your mis-translation as evidence against my original expression.

Try understanding better. Start by resisting the urge to negate.

[Eodnhoj7]

"The lack of well-behaved semantics" is a negation hence you are speaking less about negation, as you are using it, and more about the limits of your own language.

That's false. Negation is absent in that expression.

You are translating my expression into a negated paraphrase, then using features of your mis-translation as evidence against my original expression.

Try understanding better. Start by resisting the urge to negate.

That is a negation as well, and there was no misreading, you just failed to see the implications of what you intended.

But regardless you are making distinctions, within and of distinctions, and that cannot be negated without using a distinction.

It would be best if you just stayed with programming.

[Skepdick]

"The lack of well-behaved semantics" is a negation hence you are speaking less about negation, as you are using it, and more about the limits of your own language.

That's false. Negation is absent in that expression.

You are translating my expression into a negated paraphrase, then using features of your mis-translation as evidence against my original expression.

Try understanding better. Start by resisting the urge to negate.

That is a negation as well, and there was no misreading, you just failed to see the implications of what you intended.

But regardless you are making distinctions, within and of distinctions, and that cannot be negated without using a distinction.

It would be best if you just stayed with programming.

You are sliding between three cognitive operations: distinction, negation, and implication.

A distinction marks a boundary.
Negation operates on a proposition or predicate.
Implication relates one claim to another.

Reinterpreting every distinction as negation assumes different semantics from the one I am using, so when you reinterpret my words through the lens of negation you are necessarily misunderstanding my English.

The error is all yours, yet you externalize it.

[Gary Childress]

A line segment within a line segment are but scales of a line segment. One line segment is equal to another, as a line segment, but different in scale.

You claim gibberish and yet you claimed LI is not A=A, you have no foundations by your own standards. The gibberish is not what is claimed by me, it is what you assert by your own standards as you have no coherent defintion but vague bandwagon "common sense".

You're using words that don't = themselves again to assert something. If (=) (=/=) (=), then nothing you say refers to itself. You may as well gurgle water instead of discussing logic. I've said before that the Li = Li. So I don't see how I have that problem. (=) = (=) is common sense. If you don't think it does, then there's something wrong with your common sense. So I'll ask again, does (=) =/= (=)? Let me know if you still believe that.

I covered this before, but given you run off of emotion over reason, here it is again:

1. A line segment within a line segment are but scales of a line segment. In these respects A=A.

2. One line segment is equal to another, as a line segment, but different in scale. In these respects A=/=A.

By degree equality is context, and the identity of the context is the relation of the context itself. What repeats within a context is equal, what does not repeat is not equal.

A=/=A observes a line segment not equal to another line segment by degree of scale. One cat does not equal another.

A=A observes line segments equal as a line segment. Two different cats are equal as cats.

You are focused on a pure A=/=A, which derives (=)=/=(=), when the identity of A=A, which derives (=)=(=), is dually necessary for identity through contrast. Contrast allows for identity by distinction. Thus by default (=)=/=(=) observes each respective (=) gaining identity by degree of not being the other (=).

This is a variation of what is called paraconsistent logic.

But please go on rambling.


Logic can be measured typographical, geometrically, as the proof of identity can be observed in simple line segments. Thus you cannot argue over language given simple space reveals these properties.

So it's "paraconsistent logic"? So are you asserting that it is not the case that (=)=/=(=)? Or are you asserting that it is the case that (=)=/=(=)? Or are you asserting something else entirely? And if so, then what are you asserting?

[Eodnhoj7]

You're using words that don't = themselves again to assert something. If (=) (=/=) (=), then nothing you say refers to itself. You may as well gurgle water instead of discussing logic. I've said before that the Li = Li. So I don't see how I have that problem. (=) = (=) is common sense. If you don't think it does, then there's something wrong with your common sense. So I'll ask again, does (=) =/= (=)? Let me know if you still believe that.

I covered this before, but given you run off of emotion over reason, here it is again:

1. A line segment within a line segment are but scales of a line segment. In these respects A=A.

2. One line segment is equal to another, as a line segment, but different in scale. In these respects A=/=A.

By degree equality is context, and the identity of the context is the relation of the context itself. What repeats within a context is equal, what does not repeat is not equal.

A=/=A observes a line segment not equal to another line segment by degree of scale. One cat does not equal another.

A=A observes line segments equal as a line segment. Two different cats are equal as cats.

You are focused on a pure A=/=A, which derives (=)=/=(=), when the identity of A=A, which derives (=)=(=), is dually necessary for identity through contrast. Contrast allows for identity by distinction. Thus by default (=)=/=(=) observes each respective (=) gaining identity by degree of not being the other (=).

This is a variation of what is called paraconsistent logic.

But please go on rambling.


Logic can be measured typographical, geometrically, as the proof of identity can be observed in simple line segments. Thus you cannot argue over language given simple space reveals these properties.

So it's "paraconsistent logic"? So are you asserting that it is not the case that (=)=/=(=)? Or are you asserting that it is the case that (=)=/=(=)? Or are you asserting something else entirely? And if so, then what are you asserting?

I said a variation. But pure paraconsistent logic? No.


What remains is the geometric proof of the line segment relative to identity. It is not a proof of A=A and A=/=A but rather the emergent distinctions of such. The line segment does not assert such things it reveals them.

So if you need a visual....there you go.

[Eodnhoj7]

That's false. Negation is absent in that expression.

You are translating my expression into a negated paraphrase, then using features of your mis-translation as evidence against my original expression.

Try understanding better. Start by resisting the urge to negate.

That is a negation as well, and there was no misreading, you just failed to see the implications of what you intended.

But regardless you are making distinctions, within and of distinctions, and that cannot be negated without using a distinction.

It would be best if you just stayed with programming.

You are sliding between three cognitive operations: distinction, negation, and implication.

A distinction marks a boundary.
Negation operates on a proposition or predicate.
Implication relates one claim to another.

Reinterpreting every distinction as negation assumes different semantics from the one I am using, so when you reinterpret my words through the lens of negation you are necessarily misunderstanding my English.

The error is all yours, yet you externalize it.

No error, no externalization, just awareness of the limits of what you claim.

A cognitive operation is subject to being a distinction, so is a non-cognitive operation. What remains is the event of distinction.

A negation is the boundary upon something by its absence this implicating the boundary as both the relative absence and presence of a thing by degree of the event of distinction itself.

Try arguing against distinctions without using them.

[Gary Childress]

I covered this before, but given you run off of emotion over reason, here it is again:

1. A line segment within a line segment are but scales of a line segment. In these respects A=A.

2. One line segment is equal to another, as a line segment, but different in scale. In these respects A=/=A.

By degree equality is context, and the identity of the context is the relation of the context itself. What repeats within a context is equal, what does not repeat is not equal.

A=/=A observes a line segment not equal to another line segment by degree of scale. One cat does not equal another.

A=A observes line segments equal as a line segment. Two different cats are equal as cats.

You are focused on a pure A=/=A, which derives (=)=/=(=), when the identity of A=A, which derives (=)=(=), is dually necessary for identity through contrast. Contrast allows for identity by distinction. Thus by default (=)=/=(=) observes each respective (=) gaining identity by degree of not being the other (=).

This is a variation of what is called paraconsistent logic.

But please go on rambling.


Logic can be measured typographical, geometrically, as the proof of identity can be observed in simple line segments. Thus you cannot argue over language given simple space reveals these properties.

So it's "paraconsistent logic"? So are you asserting that it is not the case that (=)=/=(=)? Or are you asserting that it is the case that (=)=/=(=)? Or are you asserting something else entirely? And if so, then what are you asserting?

I said a variation. But pure paraconsistent logic? No.


What remains is the geometric proof of the line segment relative to identity. It is not a proof of A=A and A=/=A but rather the emergent distinctions of such. The line segment does not assert such things it reveals them.

So if you need a visual....there you go.

A line segment is not "proof" of A=A and A=/=A, but an "emergent distinction" of A=A and A=/=A or "reveals" that A=A and A=/=A. Is that correct?

And if the above summary is correct, do you therefore believe that (=)=(=) and (=)=/=(=)?

So, for example, "equal" both "equals" itself and does not "equal" itself. Is that correct?

And if the above is correct, is it simultaneously both "equal" and "not equal" to itself or does it do this in different situations, changing between the two but not simultaneously being both?

[Eodnhoj7]

So it's "paraconsistent logic"? So are you asserting that it is not the case that (=)=/=(=)? Or are you asserting that it is the case that (=)=/=(=)? Or are you asserting something else entirely? And if so, then what are you asserting?

I said a variation. But pure paraconsistent logic? No.


What remains is the geometric proof of the line segment relative to identity. It is not a proof of A=A and A=/=A but rather the emergent distinctions of such. The line segment does not assert such things it reveals them.

So if you need a visual....there you go.

A line segment is not "proof" of A=A and A=/=A, but an "emergent distinction" of A=A and A=/=A or "reveals" that A=A and A=/=A. Is that correct?

And if the above summary is correct, do you therefore believe that (=)=(=) and (=)=/=(=)?

So, for example, "equal" both "equals" itself and does not "equal" itself. Is that correct?

And if the above is correct, is it simultaneously both "equal" and "not equal" to itself or does it do this in different situations, changing between the two but not simultaneously being both?

Do you think asking multiple questions, after given an explanation, reveals that you do not understand the explanation?

[Gary Childress]

I said a variation. But pure paraconsistent logic? No.


What remains is the geometric proof of the line segment relative to identity. It is not a proof of A=A and A=/=A but rather the emergent distinctions of such. The line segment does not assert such things it reveals them.

So if you need a visual....there you go.

A line segment is not "proof" of A=A and A=/=A, but an "emergent distinction" of A=A and A=/=A or "reveals" that A=A and A=/=A. Is that correct?

And if the above summary is correct, do you therefore believe that (=)=(=) and (=)=/=(=)?

So, for example, "equal" both "equals" itself and does not "equal" itself. Is that correct?

And if the above is correct, is it simultaneously both "equal" and "not equal" to itself or does it do this in different situations, changing between the two but not simultaneously being both?

Do you think asking multiple questions, after given an explanation, reveals that you do not understand the explanation?

If I ask multiple questions after an explanation, then that seems to be a pretty obvious indicator that I maybe don't understand the explanation. If you ask me such a question after I ask you a question, does that indicate that you are refusing to answer my follow-up questions to further clarify what you mean?

Do you believe that (=)=(=) and (=)=/=(=)? And if so, how do you believe both of those conflicting statements?

[Eodnhoj7]

A line segment is not "proof" of A=A and A=/=A, but an "emergent distinction" of A=A and A=/=A or "reveals" that A=A and A=/=A. Is that correct?

And if the above summary is correct, do you therefore believe that (=)=(=) and (=)=/=(=)?

So, for example, "equal" both "equals" itself and does not "equal" itself. Is that correct?

And if the above is correct, is it simultaneously both "equal" and "not equal" to itself or does it do this in different situations, changing between the two but not simultaneously being both?

Do you think asking multiple questions, after given an explanation, reveals that you do not understand the explanation?

If I ask multiple questions after an explanation, then that seems to be a pretty obvious indicator that I maybe don't understand the explanation. If you ask me such a question after I ask you a question, does that indicate that you are refusing to answer my follow-up questions to further clarify what you mean?

Do you believe that (=)=(=) and (=)=/=(=)? And if so, how do you believe both of those conflicting things?

Then apparently you do not believe a line segment composed of line segments and yet belief is not required...they just are, it just is. And the nature? A primitive distinction.

My belief? None. I observe what is distinct.

To be frank, and not to be rude, I really do not care if you believe or do not believe, understand or do not understand.

Tell me...why I should value your approval?

Why should I bother trying to convince you of anything?

[Gary Childress]

Do you think asking multiple questions, after given an explanation, reveals that you do not understand the explanation?

If I ask multiple questions after an explanation, then that seems to be a pretty obvious indicator that I maybe don't understand the explanation. If you ask me such a question after I ask you a question, does that indicate that you are refusing to answer my follow-up questions to further clarify what you mean?

Do you believe that (=)=(=) and (=)=/=(=)? And if so, how do you believe both of those conflicting things?

Then apparently you do not believe a line segment composed of line segments and yet belief is not required...they just are, it just is. And the nature? A primitive distinction.

My belief? None. I observe what is distinct.

To be frank, and not to be rude, I really do not care if you believe or do not believe, understand or do not understand.

Tell me...why I should value your approval?

Why should I bother trying to convince you of anything?

I'm just curious how one believes both that (=)=(=) and (=)=/=(=). Or do you NOT believe both that (=)=(=) and (=)=/=(=)?

Does the same apply to the word "is"? If I say the building is burning, does that mean the building is both burning and is not burning? And if it means both, then will you evacuate the building or stay there? It's like solipsism. A person can say they believe that they are the only person in the world, and everyone else is an illusion or a robot or something. But can anyone truly believe such a thing and effectively live a decent life in the world with such a belief? Can anyone truly believe in solipsism without demonstrating in their ordinary conduct that they don't believe in solipsism?

[Eodnhoj7]

If I ask multiple questions after an explanation, then that seems to be a pretty obvious indicator that I maybe don't understand the explanation. If you ask me such a question after I ask you a question, does that indicate that you are refusing to answer my follow-up questions to further clarify what you mean?

Do you believe that (=)=(=) and (=)=/=(=)? And if so, how do you believe both of those conflicting things?

Then apparently you do not believe a line segment composed of line segments and yet belief is not required...they just are, it just is. And the nature? A primitive distinction.

My belief? None. I observe what is distinct.

To be frank, and not to be rude, I really do not care if you believe or do not believe, understand or do not understand.

Tell me...why I should value your approval?

Why should I bother trying to convince you of anything?

I'm just curious how one believes both that (=)=(=) and (=)=/=(=). Or do you NOT believe both that (=)=(=) and (=)=/=(=)?

Does the same apply to the word "is"? If I say the building is burning, does that mean the building is both burning and is not burning? And if it means both, then will you evacuate the building or stay there? It's like solipsism. A person can say they believe that they are the only person in the world, and everyone else is an illusion or a robot or something. But can anyone truly believe such a thing and effectively live a decent life in the world with such a belief? Can anyone truly believe that without demonstrating in their ordinary conduct that they don't?

I never said belief. I said observed distinctions. Which leads to the necessary next point.

Truthfully I really do not care about your questions.

You are not someone worth impressing or convincing.

Go back to complaining about the world decaying and your self-pity party.

What has been stated has been stated. If a line segment containing line segments is too deep for you....it is probably because your mind decayed with the world you incessantly complain about....the same world your logic produced.

You can have the last word to save face.