The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic
The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic
The failure of the three laws of logic.
The three laws are as follows:
The law of identity: P is P.
The law of noncontradiction: P is not nonP.
The law of the excluded middle: Either P or nonP.
The law of the excluded middle fails to take into account that it mediates the Law of Identity and the Law of NonContradiction by providing P and –P as having an “either/or” nature. This is important considering this “either/or” nature of P and –P provides a boundary of alternation where P is defined between its seperation as not –P.
This alternation of P and –P observes this act of division as a form of mediation. This mediation occurs as a boundary in itself through “either/or” in which the divisory nature of “either/or” acts simultaneously as unifier of opposites (in this case P and –P) where P exists through –P and –P exists through P. “Either/or” as a connector takes on the dual role of “both/and” by provided a division as a source of structure to both P and –P.
The Law of Excluded Middle, in these respects, contradicts itself by becoming the middle state of P and –P while at the macro level being the mediator between the Law of Identity and the Law of NonContradiction.
This inversely contradicts the Law of Identity and the Law of NonContradiction considering both are subject to the Law of the Excluded Middle in themselves.
The law of Identity observes “P is P” is triadic, not the intended dualistic terms of the Law of excluded middle, where “is” acts as divisor that unifies P through itself by observing its inherently ability to replicate as “P” and “P” in “P is P” under a form of relativistic definition where P individuates itself under a form of selfrelation. This individuation observes a unity through frequency as replication where the Law of NonContradiction and the Law of Excluded Middle replicate “P” as a premise that is triadic in nature due to its necessity in defining the Three Laws.
The Law of NonContradiction observes the separate of P and –P which provides the boundaries of P by what –P. P is notP but is defined by its separation from its own negation as its own form as a form of negation of negation. This –P, as an observation of deficiency in P, observed –P merely being a relation of some variable relative to P considering –P cannot be observed on its own terms except as a deficiency. This boundary of division of nothingness, resulting in P, observed a medial boundary of “is not” as negation from which P and –P arises. This negation which forms the boundaries of P is observed in the Law of Identity through replication as individuation through separation and the law of excluded middle where this NonContradiction is the middle point from which P originates through –P and –P originates through P.
The three laws are as follows:
The law of identity: P is P.
The law of noncontradiction: P is not nonP.
The law of the excluded middle: Either P or nonP.
The law of the excluded middle fails to take into account that it mediates the Law of Identity and the Law of NonContradiction by providing P and –P as having an “either/or” nature. This is important considering this “either/or” nature of P and –P provides a boundary of alternation where P is defined between its seperation as not –P.
This alternation of P and –P observes this act of division as a form of mediation. This mediation occurs as a boundary in itself through “either/or” in which the divisory nature of “either/or” acts simultaneously as unifier of opposites (in this case P and –P) where P exists through –P and –P exists through P. “Either/or” as a connector takes on the dual role of “both/and” by provided a division as a source of structure to both P and –P.
The Law of Excluded Middle, in these respects, contradicts itself by becoming the middle state of P and –P while at the macro level being the mediator between the Law of Identity and the Law of NonContradiction.
This inversely contradicts the Law of Identity and the Law of NonContradiction considering both are subject to the Law of the Excluded Middle in themselves.
The law of Identity observes “P is P” is triadic, not the intended dualistic terms of the Law of excluded middle, where “is” acts as divisor that unifies P through itself by observing its inherently ability to replicate as “P” and “P” in “P is P” under a form of relativistic definition where P individuates itself under a form of selfrelation. This individuation observes a unity through frequency as replication where the Law of NonContradiction and the Law of Excluded Middle replicate “P” as a premise that is triadic in nature due to its necessity in defining the Three Laws.
The Law of NonContradiction observes the separate of P and –P which provides the boundaries of P by what –P. P is notP but is defined by its separation from its own negation as its own form as a form of negation of negation. This –P, as an observation of deficiency in P, observed –P merely being a relation of some variable relative to P considering –P cannot be observed on its own terms except as a deficiency. This boundary of division of nothingness, resulting in P, observed a medial boundary of “is not” as negation from which P and –P arises. This negation which forms the boundaries of P is observed in the Law of Identity through replication as individuation through separation and the law of excluded middle where this NonContradiction is the middle point from which P originates through –P and –P originates through P.

 Posts: 56
 Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2018 3:37 pm
Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic
The law of excluded middle states that there is no third possibility. It is totally in line with the law of noncontradiction and the law of identity.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 11, 2018 5:25 pmThe failure of the three laws of logic.
The three laws are as follows:
The law of identity: P is P.
The law of noncontradiction: P is not nonP.
The law of the excluded middle: Either P or nonP.
The law of the excluded middle fails to take into account that it mediates the Law of Identity and the Law of NonContradiction by providing P and –P as having an “either/or” nature. This is important considering this “either/or” nature of P and –P provides a boundary of alternation where P is defined between its seperation as not –P.
Thus, there is no contradiction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle
The Three Laws of Logic do not make a triadic nature they are all merely manifestations of the same single principle but due to language and in order to better comprehend the principle, it is split up into three cathegories, which are all essentially the same.The law of Identity observes “P is P” is triadic, not the intended dualistic terms of the Law of excluded middle, where “is” acts as divisor that unifies P through itself by observing its inherently ability to replicate as “P” and “P” in “P is P” under a form of relativistic definition where P individuates itself under a form of selfrelation. This individuation observes a unity through frequency as replication where the Law of NonContradiction and the Law of Excluded Middle replicate “P” as a premise that is triadic in nature due to its necessity in defining the Three Laws.
For example: P is P (law of identity) and P is not nonP (which is essentially the same as saying P is P). Then comes a second nature of it, which makes a possibility of either P or nonP. At worstcase scenario, we have a dualistic nature, not a triadic, even by your own reasoning.
Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic
philosopher wrote: ↑Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:37 pmThe law of excluded middle states that there is no third possibility. It is totally in line with the law of noncontradiction and the law of identity.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 11, 2018 5:25 pmThe failure of the three laws of logic.
The three laws are as follows:
The law of identity: P is P.
The law of noncontradiction: P is not nonP.
The law of the excluded middle: Either P or nonP.
The law of the excluded middle fails to take into account that it mediates the Law of Identity and the Law of NonContradiction by providing P and –P as having an “either/or” nature. This is important considering this “either/or” nature of P and –P provides a boundary of alternation where P is defined between its seperation as not –P.
Thus, there is no contradiction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle
The law of excluded middle exists as a third possibility in itself in the respect that:
1) It is the third law which defines the Law of Identity and the Law of nocontradiction. The Law of identity must follow both itself and the Law of Nocontradiction if it is to exists. The Law of NoContradiction must follow in similar form and function respectively. The Law of Exclude middle becomes a law of relation where P and P exist if and only if they relate, with "either/or" being the means of relation.
2) The Law of Excluded middle takes on a Neutral third Role as "either/or". Negatively speaking this is reduced to "neither/nor" or Positively speaking "Both/and". In these respects the Law of Excluded middle takes on the role as a medial conceptual boundary between "P and P" from which "P and P" extend.
3) As a Neutral third role "either/or" cannot be observed without "P and P" with the exception that "either" and "or" can be observed as "either and noteither" and "or and notor". If either/or can be viewed as "either/or and noteither/or" then by default it follows the same form and function of the Law of Indentity and the Law of Noncontradiction and the Laws can either be observed to leading into a regressive contradiction or transcendence in to further laws of logic by acknowledging these limits.
My views of Contradiction as stated in the thread:
viewtopic.php?f=17&t=22950
can be viewed as a deficiency in structure and nothing more or less.
The Three Laws of Logic do not make a triadic nature they are all merely manifestations of the same single principle but due to language and in order to better comprehend the principle, it is split up into three cathegories, which are all essentially the same.The law of Identity observes “P is P” is triadic, not the intended dualistic terms of the Law of excluded middle, where “is” acts as divisor that unifies P through itself by observing its inherently ability to replicate as “P” and “P” in “P is P” under a form of relativistic definition where P individuates itself under a form of selfrelation. This individuation observes a unity through frequency as replication where the Law of NonContradiction and the Law of Excluded Middle replicate “P” as a premise that is triadic in nature due to its necessity in defining the Three Laws.
If all are essentially the same and they must be broken down into a triad, due to the inherently symbolic nature of language necessitating this, then by default they are triadic.
For example: P is P (law of identity) and P is not nonP (which is essentially the same as saying P is P). Then comes a second nature of it, which makes a possibility of either P or nonP. At worstcase scenario, we have a dualistic nature, not a triadic, even by your own reasoning.
Yes and "is" follows by extension, in similarity, to the Law of Excluded middle where "either/or" observes an inherent "is". In these respects the Law of Excluded middle necessitates a neutral median from which P and P begin, manifest through, and end. "Is" and "Not is", for the first two laws, observes the Law of Excluded Middle but this law is what gives form to the first two laws in which case they cannot exist without the third.
The three laws observe: Form, Form, and Function with Function being the origin of both forms. These forms in turn cycle back to the function becoming a form in itself, under the Law of Excluded Middle.

 Posts: 56
 Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2018 3:37 pm
Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic
The Law of Excluded Middle is excluding a third possibility  not a third rule. Either/Or  binary. But binaries can have more than a 00 or 01 or 11  it can have 01011 (11)  it doesn't mean it has 11 possibilities, but 11 bits of whatever. That's entirely a different thing.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 15, 2018 3:48 pmphilosopher wrote: ↑Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:37 pmThe law of excluded middle states that there is no third possibility. It is totally in line with the law of noncontradiction and the law of identity.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 11, 2018 5:25 pmThe failure of the three laws of logic.
The three laws are as follows:
The law of identity: P is P.
The law of noncontradiction: P is not nonP.
The law of the excluded middle: Either P or nonP.
The law of the excluded middle fails to take into account that it mediates the Law of Identity and the Law of NonContradiction by providing P and –P as having an “either/or” nature. This is important considering this “either/or” nature of P and –P provides a boundary of alternation where P is defined between its seperation as not –P.
Thus, there is no contradiction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle
The law of excluded middle exists as a third possibility in itself in the respect that:
1) It is the third law which defines the Law of Identity and the Law of nocontradiction. The Law of identity must follow both itself and the Law of Nocontradiction if it is to exists. The Law of NoContradiction must follow in similar form and function respectively. The Law of Exclude middle becomes a law of relation where P and P exist if and only if they relate, with "either/or" being the means of relation.
2) The Law of Excluded middle takes on a Neutral third Role as "either/or". Negatively speaking this is reduced to "neither/nor" or Positively speaking "Both/and". In these respects the Law of Excluded middle takes on the role as a medial conceptual boundary between "P and P" from which "P and P" extend.
3) As a Neutral third role "either/or" cannot be observed without "P and P" with the exception that "either" and "or" can be observed as "either and noteither" and "or and notor". If either/or can be viewed as "either/or and noteither/or" then by default it follows the same form and function of the Law of Indentity and the Law of Noncontradiction and the Laws can either be observed to leading into a regressive contradiction or transcendence in to further laws of logic by acknowledging these limits.
My views of Contradiction as stated in the thread:
viewtopic.php?f=17&t=22950
can be viewed as a deficiency in structure and nothing more or less.
The Three Laws of Logic do not make a triadic nature they are all merely manifestations of the same single principle but due to language and in order to better comprehend the principle, it is split up into three cathegories, which are all essentially the same.The law of Identity observes “P is P” is triadic, not the intended dualistic terms of the Law of excluded middle, where “is” acts as divisor that unifies P through itself by observing its inherently ability to replicate as “P” and “P” in “P is P” under a form of relativistic definition where P individuates itself under a form of selfrelation. This individuation observes a unity through frequency as replication where the Law of NonContradiction and the Law of Excluded Middle replicate “P” as a premise that is triadic in nature due to its necessity in defining the Three Laws.
If all are essentially the same and they must be broken down into a triad, due to the inherently symbolic nature of language necessitating this, then by default they are triadic.
For example: P is P (law of identity) and P is not nonP (which is essentially the same as saying P is P). Then comes a second nature of it, which makes a possibility of either P or nonP. At worstcase scenario, we have a dualistic nature, not a triadic, even by your own reasoning.
Yes and "is" follows by extension, in similarity, to the Law of Excluded middle where "either/or" observes an inherent "is". In these respects the Law of Excluded middle necessitates a neutral median from which P and P begin, manifest through, and end. "Is" and "Not is", for the first two laws, observes the Law of Excluded Middle but this law is what gives form to the first two laws in which case they cannot exist without the third.
The three laws observe: Form, Form, and Function with Function being the origin of both forms. These forms in turn cycle back to the function becoming a form in itself, under the Law of Excluded Middle.

 Posts: 56
 Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2018 3:37 pm
Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic
I googled the contradictions to see if anyone else have seen any contradictions to the three laws of logic, but I could not find anything about it.
If you have a link to a second opinion on this contradiction, I'd like to read some more.
If you have a link to a second opinion on this contradiction, I'd like to read some more.
 SirSisterofSuck
 Posts: 788
 Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:09 am
Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic
I had smoked some weed last night while I was looking through your argument in this thread, and It wasn't making a whole lot of sense to me so I came to the conclusion that I was too high. Now I'm sober, and what you're saying makes even less sense to me.
The way that you write is extraordinarily confusing to anyone but yourself. You don't strike me as someone who knows a lot of philosophical terminology, so it seems like you just google search a bunch of words and put them together in an alphabet soup. As per usual, I was only able to pick up bits and pieces of what you're trying to say.
The way that you write is extraordinarily confusing to anyone but yourself. You don't strike me as someone who knows a lot of philosophical terminology, so it seems like you just google search a bunch of words and put them together in an alphabet soup. As per usual, I was only able to pick up bits and pieces of what you're trying to say.
There is a common criticism to the 'Law of Excluded Middle.' I'm not able to find a source right now, but it goes something along the line of "Either penguins can fly, or they can't  but what if only some penguins could fly?" And the reason why that doesn't hold water as an argument against the Law of Excluded Middle, is because the law only applies to bivalent logic  when it's applied to a true dichotomy, like "Nothing can both be and not be." It does not apply to propositions that literally do give way to a middle answer.philosopher wrote: ↑Fri Jun 15, 2018 8:13 pmIf you have a link to a second opinion on this contradiction, I'd like to read some more.
Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic
The Law of excluded middle is a third rule and as a third rule, acts as the middle means from which the law of identity and the law of nocontradiction proceed form.philosopher wrote: ↑Fri Jun 15, 2018 8:03 pmThe Law of Excluded Middle is excluding a third possibility  not a third rule. Either/Or  binary. But binaries can have more than a 00 or 01 or 11  it can have 01011 (11)  it doesn't mean it has 11 possibilities, but 11 bits of whatever. That's entirely a different thing.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 15, 2018 3:48 pmphilosopher wrote: ↑Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:37 pm
The law of excluded middle states that there is no third possibility. It is totally in line with the law of noncontradiction and the law of identity.
Thus, there is no contradiction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle
The law of excluded middle exists as a third possibility in itself in the respect that:
1) It is the third law which defines the Law of Identity and the Law of nocontradiction. The Law of identity must follow both itself and the Law of Nocontradiction if it is to exists. The Law of NoContradiction must follow in similar form and function respectively. The Law of Exclude middle becomes a law of relation where P and P exist if and only if they relate, with "either/or" being the means of relation.
2) The Law of Excluded middle takes on a Neutral third Role as "either/or". Negatively speaking this is reduced to "neither/nor" or Positively speaking "Both/and". In these respects the Law of Excluded middle takes on the role as a medial conceptual boundary between "P and P" from which "P and P" extend.
3) As a Neutral third role "either/or" cannot be observed without "P and P" with the exception that "either" and "or" can be observed as "either and noteither" and "or and notor". If either/or can be viewed as "either/or and noteither/or" then by default it follows the same form and function of the Law of Indentity and the Law of Noncontradiction and the Laws can either be observed to leading into a regressive contradiction or transcendence in to further laws of logic by acknowledging these limits.
My views of Contradiction as stated in the thread:
viewtopic.php?f=17&t=22950
can be viewed as a deficiency in structure and nothing more or less.
The Three Laws of Logic do not make a triadic nature they are all merely manifestations of the same single principle but due to language and in order to better comprehend the principle, it is split up into three cathegories, which are all essentially the same.
If all are essentially the same and they must be broken down into a triad, due to the inherently symbolic nature of language necessitating this, then by default they are triadic.
For example: P is P (law of identity) and P is not nonP (which is essentially the same as saying P is P). Then comes a second nature of it, which makes a possibility of either P or nonP. At worstcase scenario, we have a dualistic nature, not a triadic, even by your own reasoning.
Yes and "is" follows by extension, in similarity, to the Law of Excluded middle where "either/or" observes an inherent "is". In these respects the Law of Excluded middle necessitates a neutral median from which P and P begin, manifest through, and end. "Is" and "Not is", for the first two laws, observes the Law of Excluded Middle but this law is what gives form to the first two laws in which case they cannot exist without the third.
The three laws observe: Form, Form, and Function with Function being the origin of both forms. These forms in turn cycle back to the function becoming a form in itself, under the Law of Excluded Middle.
It manifests as the neutral median of "/" under "either/or".
The law of Identity is triadic with "P = P" being mediated by the middle term of "=". Equality implies seperation as what is equal is seperate.
It cannot be "equal" to myself unless comparing one me to another me across time/space. "=" would have to exist as "="="=" if it is to maintain any accurate definition under its own rule or "P = P" would have to be observed strictly as "P"...not even (P,P) as this observes an inherent seperation also.
A "possibility" becomes a rule in itself considering the "possibility" is the negative boundary (what is not) of an actual limit. This negation, as a limit of limit so to speak, makes it a medial third point as a negative.
A dualism, or binary set of units, extends from a unity in itself that is inherently neutral. 1,0 exist if and only if their is possible 1,0 from which 1,0 extend from and/or moves towards.
The law of exclude middle contradicts itself in the respect it necessitates a medial third point from which the dualisms either extend from or move towards (such as "=", "is", "is not") which in themselves must exist under the law of identity ("=" is "=", "is" = "is", "is not" = "is not", etc.).
The law of exclude middle must follow its own law of identity and law of noncontradiction in these respects as it either exists or does not exist. In these respects the law of excluded middle exists as an observation of a neutral medial element that exists as negative neutral (either/or) which exists if and only if there is a positive neutral (both/and) considering a negative cannot exist on its own terms without negating a positive.
In these respects it is dependent upon the first two laws, with the first to laws extending from the law of excluded middle making the law of exclude middle an observation of a third medium in one respect (hence a contradiction) and necessitating the law of excluded middle observes an inherent element of neutrality (not contradictory to its definition).
Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuitionistic_logicphilosopher wrote: ↑Fri Jun 15, 2018 8:13 pmI googled the contradictions to see if anyone else have seen any contradictions to the three laws of logic, but I could not find anything about it.
If you have a link to a second opinion on this contradiction, I'd like to read some more.
Sometimes the law is just removed.
Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic
SirSisterofSuck wrote: ↑Mon Jun 18, 2018 8:20 pmI had smoked some weed last night while I was looking through your argument in this thread, and It wasn't making a whole lot of sense to me so I came to the conclusion that I was too high. Now I'm sober, and what you're saying makes even less sense to me.
The way that you write is extraordinarily confusing to anyone but yourself. You don't strike me as someone who knows a lot of philosophical terminology, so it seems like you just google search a bunch of words and put them together in an alphabet soup. As per usual, I was only able to pick up bits and pieces of what you're trying to say.
And what terms would be best to use if the law of excluded middle only uses a limited number of terms?
There is a common criticism to the 'Law of Excluded Middle.' I'm not able to find a source right now, but it goes something along the line of "Either penguins can fly, or they can't  but what if only some penguins could fly?" And the reason why that doesn't hold water as an argument against the Law of Excluded Middle, is because the law only applies to bivalent logic  when it's applied to a true dichotomy, like "Nothing can both be and not be." It does not apply to propositions that literally do give way to a middle answer.philosopher wrote: ↑Fri Jun 15, 2018 8:13 pmIf you have a link to a second opinion on this contradiction, I'd like to read some more.

 Posts: 56
 Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2018 3:37 pm
Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic
Read this:Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 18, 2018 11:12 pmhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuitionistic_logicphilosopher wrote: ↑Fri Jun 15, 2018 8:13 pmI googled the contradictions to see if anyone else have seen any contradictions to the three laws of logic, but I could not find anything about it.
If you have a link to a second opinion on this contradiction, I'd like to read some more.
Sometimes the law is just removed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuition ... ical_Logic
Aside from being weaker than classical logic, the very notion "Intuition" strikes me as something that says: Stay the hell out of there!
You can't trust intuition. Never. Intuition is a GUI (Graphical User Interface) for the brain to work with, but as with other software, if you really want to understand stuff, you go behind the GUI and read the source code itself.
Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic
philosopher wrote: ↑Tue Jun 19, 2018 10:12 pmRead this:Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 18, 2018 11:12 pmhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuitionistic_logicphilosopher wrote: ↑Fri Jun 15, 2018 8:13 pmI googled the contradictions to see if anyone else have seen any contradictions to the three laws of logic, but I could not find anything about it.
If you have a link to a second opinion on this contradiction, I'd like to read some more.
Sometimes the law is just removed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuition ... ical_Logic
Aside from being weaker than classical logic, the very notion "Intuition" strikes me as something that says: Stay the hell out of there!
You can't trust intuition. Never. Intuition is a GUI (Graphical User Interface) for the brain to work with, but as with other software, if you really want to understand stuff, you go behind the GUI and read the source code itself.
If you cannot trust intuition then you cannot trust logic or reason, considering the logic and reason from which an argument extends from is in itself dependent upon its axiom.
It is necessary for axiomization as it allows for the existence of an object
"In the philosophy of mathematics, constructivism asserts that it is necessary to find (or "construct") a mathematical object to prove that it exists. When one assumes that an object does not exist and derives a contradiction from that assumption, one still has not found the object and therefore not proved its existence, according to constructivism."
P exists through an act of constructing relations in the foundations of three rules, and "P" exists through relations alone. The laws are constructed.
Intuitionistic logic is one of the set of approaches of constructivism in mathematics. The use of constructivist logics in general has been a controversial topic among mathematicians and philosophers (see, for example, the Brouwer–Hilbert controversy). A common objection to their use is the abovecited lack of two central rules of classical logic, the law of excluded middle and double negation elimination. These are considered to be so important to the practice of mathematics that David Hilbert wrote of them: "Taking the principle of excluded middle from the mathematician would be the same, say, as proscribing the telescope to the astronomer or to the boxer the use of his fists. To prohibit existence statements and the principle of excluded middle is tantamount to relinquishing the science of mathematics altogether." [3]
Yes and the aztecs had some of the most advanced astronomical advancements without the telescope...and without gloves a boxer would kill a man with his fists. The logic of the statement, observed though the metaphor, is that mathematics hinders man's rational faculties. Before man could do much more on his own, after wards he is dependent upon tools.
Despite the serious challenges presented by the inability to utilize the valuable rules of excluded middle and double negation elimination, intuitionistic logic has practical use. One reason for this is that its restrictions produce proofs that have the existence property, making it also suitable for other forms of mathematical constructivism. Informally, this means that if there is a constructive proof that an object exists, that constructive proof may be used as an algorithm for generating an example of that object, a principle known as the Curry–Howard correspondence between proofs and algorithms. One reason that this particular aspect of intuitionistic logic is so valuable is that it enables practitioners to utilize a wide range of computerized tools, known as proof assistants. These tools assist their users in the verification (and generation) of largescale proofs, whose size usually precludes the usual humanbased checking that goes into publishing and reviewing a mathematical proof. As such, the use of proof assistants (such as Agda or Coq) is enabling modern mathematicians and logicians to develop and prove extremely complex systems, beyond those which are feasible to create and check solely by hand. One example of a proof which was impossible to formally verify before the advent of these tools is the famous proof of the four color theorem. This theorem stumped mathematicians for more than a hundred years, until a proof was developed which ruled out large classes of possible counterexamples, yet still left open enough possibilities that a computer program was needed to finish the proof. That proof was controversial for some time, but it was finally verified using Coq.
 Arising_uk
 Posts: 11241
 Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am
Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic
I truly have no idea what you are talking about and for all I know you might be on to something but personaly I think it some kind of Hegalianism applied to Logic but could be wrong. As such I'll just address what I can.
P  there is something. "The cat sat on the mat."
¬P  there isn't that something. "The cat is not sitting on the mat"
P=P(is)  if there is something then it is that something. "If there is a cat sitting on the mat then there is a cat sitting on the mat."
¬(P ^ ¬P)  something can't be and not be at the same time. "The cat cannot be sitting on the mat and not sitting on the mat at the same time."
(P v ¬P)  there is something or there isn't. "There is a cat sitting on the mat or there isn't."
Where is the problem with this build?
What are you talking about? What failure Propositional Logic? Also this is not how the 'Laws' are built.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 11, 2018 5:25 pmThe failure of the three laws of logic.
The three laws are as follows:
The law of identity: P is P.
The law of noncontradiction: P is not nonP.
The law of the excluded middle: Either P or nonP.
The law of the excluded middle fails to take into account that it mediates the Law of Identity and the Law of NonContradiction by providing P and –P as having an “either/or” nature. This is important considering this “either/or” nature of P and –P provides a boundary of alternation where P is defined between its seperation as not –P. …
P  there is something. "The cat sat on the mat."
¬P  there isn't that something. "The cat is not sitting on the mat"
P=P(is)  if there is something then it is that something. "If there is a cat sitting on the mat then there is a cat sitting on the mat."
¬(P ^ ¬P)  something can't be and not be at the same time. "The cat cannot be sitting on the mat and not sitting on the mat at the same time."
(P v ¬P)  there is something or there isn't. "There is a cat sitting on the mat or there isn't."
Where is the problem with this build?
No they don't, monadic, dyadic and triadic do not apply to Propositional Logic.… The law of Identity observes “P is P” is triadic, not the intended dualistic terms of the Law of excluded middle, …
 Arising_uk
 Posts: 11241
 Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am
Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic
No they wouldn't, they'd more than likely break their hands. It's more likely they will kill someone with gloves on as it allows repeated blows to the head thereby shaking the brain repeatedly.Eodnhoj7 wrote:… and without gloves a boxer would kill a man with his fists. …
Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic
Arising_uk wrote: ↑Tue Jun 19, 2018 11:09 pmI truly have no idea what you are talking about and for all I know you might be on to something but personaly I think it some kind of Hegalianism applied to Logic but could be wrong. As such I'll just address what I can.What are you talking about? What failure Propositional Logic? Also this is not how the 'Laws' are built.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 11, 2018 5:25 pmThe failure of the three laws of logic.
The three laws are as follows:
The law of identity: P is P.
The law of noncontradiction: P is not nonP.
The law of the excluded middle: Either P or nonP.
The law of the excluded middle fails to take into account that it mediates the Law of Identity and the Law of NonContradiction by providing P and –P as having an “either/or” nature. This is important considering this “either/or” nature of P and –P provides a boundary of alternation where P is defined between its seperation as not –P. …
P  there is something. "The cat sat on the mat."
¬P  there isn't that something. "The cat is not sitting on the mat"
P=P(is)  if there is something then it is that something. "If there is a cat sitting on the mat then there is a cat sitting on the mat."
¬(P ^ ¬P)  something can't be and not be at the same time. "The cat cannot be sitting on the mat and not sitting on the mat at the same time."
(P v ¬P)  there is something or there isn't. "There is a cat sitting on the mat or there isn't."
Where is the problem with this build?
"P" exists if and only if there is a law of identity. The law of identity is a set of relations observed as "P=P" where this in itself is set of relations.
No they don't, monadic, dyadic and triadic do not apply to Propositional Logic.… The law of Identity observes “P is P” is triadic, not the intended dualistic terms of the Law of excluded middle, …
Pierce may differ: http://paulburgess.org/triadic.html
The law of identity is based upon a positive form (ie, "is". The Law of contradiction observes a negative form (ie "is not"). The law of Exclude middle, as either/or being a neutral foundation from which P and P extend is the third medial law which reflects back to "is" and "is not" existing as a set of relations in themselves.
The Laws cycle through eachother...as argued above.
"P is P" is triadic in the respect that:
"P" multiplies into "P,P" through "is", hence observes a replication through linear logic. "is" is the third medial term that binds P and P and from which P replicates. In these respects "P,P" and hence "P" originates from "is" as a medial term. The law of Identity observes an inherent element of 3 dimension as (P,P) and "is", without anyone of the three none could exist.
Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic
Seriously...it is a metaphor...and yes a man can kill a man with a single punch...it is for protecting the man's hands and the boxer's head.Arising_uk wrote: ↑Tue Jun 19, 2018 11:13 pmNo they wouldn't, they'd more than likely break their hands. It's more likely they will kill someone with gloves on as it allows repeated blows to the head thereby shaking the brain repeatedly.Eodnhoj7 wrote:… and without gloves a boxer would kill a man with his fists. …
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests