∞ is a free variable

[Skepdick]

Yes and your proof for that is argument from ignorance.

Once again. It's not an argument FROM ignorance.

It's an argument FROM knowledge TO ignorance.

The number 1 (as I know it) is odd.
The number 2 (as I know) it is even.
The number THREE(3) (as I know it) is not odd; AND it's not even.

THEREFORE The number THREE(3) (as I know it) is neither odd; nor even

Keep denying it all you want but that's argument from ignorance.

I can only explain it to you - can't understand it for you.

No, I asked for an integer that is neither even nor odd. An integer that has no identifiable parity is something else.

That's what having NO identifiable parity means.
You can't identify the parity as odd.
You can't identify the parity as even.

You have an integer that is neither odd nor even.

Perhaps you need me to pull out the crayons?

The color of this sentence is red. The parity of 8 is Even.
The color of this sentence is green. The parity of 9 is Odd
The color of this sentence is neither red; nor green. The parity of TREE(3) is neither even; nor odd.

At least you admit your logic is imaginary.

All logic is imaginary. Some imaginations are just worse than others.

Yes, once you redefine the terms and misinterpret the original author's claim.

A re-interpretation/re-formulation is not the same thing as a re-definition.

Because there are morons who are denying it, morons such as yourself.

I am not denying it. Your misinterpretation (resulting in a strawman) is denying it.

I haven't done any such thing

Your lack of self-awareness is not surprising.

but I can tell that you have a personal beef against logic. You really, really, hate it.

Yes. I hate your logic - I already told you so.

You hate my logic too. Even though my logic is much better.

[Magnus Anderson]

Once again. It's not an argument FROM ignorance.

It's an argument FROM knowledge TO ignorance.

The number 1 (as I know it) is odd.
The number 2 (as I know) it is even.
The number THREE(3) (as I know it) is not odd; AND it's not even.

THEREFORE The number THREE(3) (as I know it) is neither odd; nor even

Be honest for once.

This is your argument:

1. I don't know if TREE(3) is even.
2. I don't know if TREE(3) is odd.
3. Therefore, TREE(3) is neither even nor odd.

The two premises are statements about one's ignorance. The conclusion is a statement that something can be known based on those two instances of ignorance. Thus, it is an argument FROM ignorance.

Thank you very much.

[Magnus Anderson]

If you don't know that it's even, it does not follow that you know that it's not even.

And the same goes for oddness.

[Magnus Anderson]

That's what having NO identifiable parity means.

Not quite.

If you can't tell that a number is even or odd ( i.e. identify its parity ), it does not follow that it's neither even nor odd.

Again, you have serious issues with language. A lot of learning to do. But first, you will have to get off your high horse and tone down your ridiculously overblown ego.

[Magnus Anderson]

The parity of TREE(3) is neither even; nor odd.

So what's the last digit of TREE(3)?

Tell us more about that magical digit that is neither 0 nor 1 nor 2 nor 3 nor 4 nor 5 nor 6 nor 7 nor 8 nor 9.

[Magnus Anderson]

All logic is imaginary.

Not really. But yours definitely is.

[Magnus Anderson]

A re-interpretation/re-formulation is not the same thing as a re-definition.

If even and odd numbers are not complementary by definition then it's a redefinition.

You yourself can't construct an argument that looks like it's disproving what other people are saying without misinterpreting other people's claims by redefining their terms.

That's LITERALLY all you do.

[Magnus Anderson]

Yes. I hate your logic - I already told you so.

You hate my logic too. Even though my logic is much better.

Typically narcissistic self-aggrandizing statements. You're full of those.

[Skepdick]

If you don't know that it's even, it does not follow that you know that it's not even.

Of course it follows.

Not knowing something is true means I know it's NOT true.
Knowing that something is NOT true doesn't mean I know it's false.

Fix your logic!

[Skepdick]

Again, you have serious issues with language. A lot of learning to do. But first, you will have to get off your high horse and tone down your ridiculously overblown ego.

The fact that you confuse my epistemic humility for an ego speaks volumes about your ego.

[Skepdick]

You yourself can't construct an argument that looks like it's disproving what other people are saying without misinterpreting other people's claims by redefining their terms.

That's LITERALLY all you do.

I am not re-defining your terms.

I am re-interpreting your terms in my model.

I am keeping your definiitions. And then I'm fucking you over with them because they are insufficient.

[Magnus Anderson]

The law of excluded middle is a statement about propositions. It's a statement that for every proposition P, either P is true or P is false. It's a true statement but it's most definitely not an axiom. It's truth value can be derived from the definitions involved. Since "false" is defined as "not true", "true" and "not true" together cover every conceivable truth value. Thus, if the truth value of P is not in the category "true", it must be in the category "false".

Definitions, which should not be confused with propositions, are far more fundamental. And here in this thread, it is definitions that we're discussing.

Isn't it interesting that the resident smartass not only fails to understand what the law of excluded middle is but also confuses it with binary classification?

Binary classification is the process of taking a set of conceivable phenomena ( e.g. the set of all integers, the set of all truth values, etc ) and dividing it into two sets also called classes ( e.g. the set of all even numbers and the set of all odd numbers ) such that every element is placed in one of the two sets. Since every element is placed in one of the two sets, it follows that there are no elements that cannot be found in one of the two sets.

Absolutely nothing to do with the law of excluded middle which is about the truth value of propositions.

[Magnus Anderson]

Of course it follows.

Not knowing something is true means I know it's NOT true.

Emphasis is mine.

Thanks for exposing your stupidity for all to see.

[Skepdick]

The law of excluded middle is a statement about propositions. It's a statement that for every proposition P, either P is true or P is false. It's a true statement but it's most definitely not an axiom.

It's an axiom of classical logic.

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

The law is also known as the law / principle of the excluded third, in Latin principium tertii exclusi. Another Latin designation for this law is tertium non datur or "no third [possibility] is given". In classical logic, the law is a tautology.

It's truth value can be derived from the definitions involved. Since "false" is defined as "not true", "true" and "not true" together cover every conceivable truth value.

Circular reasoning is circular

You've defined False as "not not False"
You've defined True as "not not True"

Definitions, which should not be confused with propositions, are far more fundamental. And here in this thread, it is definitions that we're discussing.

Distinction without a difference. You've proposed THAT True is NOT false; and that False is NOT true.

You've re-affirmed the "law" of excluedd middle.

Isn't it interesting that the resident smartass not only fails to understand what the law of excluded middle is but also confuses it with binary classification?

It's Boolean logic. Boolean means TWO! Binary.

Idiot.

Binary classification is the process of taking a set of conceivable phenomena ( e.g. the set of all integers, the set of all truth values, etc ) and dividing it into two sets ( e.g. the set of all even numbers and the set of all odd numbers ) such that every element is placed in one of the two sets. Since every element is placed in one of the two sets, it follows that there are no elements that cannot be found in one of the two sets.

So you take the set of conceivable propositions and you divide them into two sets.

The set of true propositions a.k.a P.
The set of non-True (e.g False) propositions. a.k.a not-P.

Absolutely nothing to do with the law of excluded middle which is about the truth value of propositions.

Contradiction.

[Skepdick]

Of course it follows.

Not knowing something is true means I know it's NOT true.

Emphasis is mine.

Thanks for exposing your stupidity for all to see.

Thanks for confirming you can't actually think for yourself.

Your response is the precise thing anybody whose brain is infected with Excluded Middle would say.
This principle has hijacked your ability to make decisions.

So you believe not True means False.

Lol.