(0=0)=(1=1)

[Eodnhoj7]

What does (0=0)=(1=1) mean?

I suppose that it means "The truth value of 0=0 is equal to the truth value of 1=1".

If so, the truth value of "0=0" isn't "0" but "true"; and the truth value of "1=1" isn't "1" but "true".

Thus, true=true rather than 0=1.

But (0=0)=(1=1) as true reduces to 0=1; (0=0) reduces to 0, (1=1) reduces to 1.

[Eodnhoj7]

(0=0)=(1=1)

0=1

Zero equals one through the law of identity where all numbers equivocate as contexts.

(0 == 0) == (1 == 1)

that means that the first has the same validity than the second. Its not about the number, its about the validity.

(cat on the table) == (dog on the chair)

If the cat is on the table so then the dog is on the chair.

But the cat is not the same as the dog, and the table is not the same as the chair.

The cat is the same as the dog in the respect both are mammals.
The table is the same as the chair as both are furniture.

[Impenitent]

the cat, the dog, the table and the chair each have 4 legs.

buy some pants

-Imp

[CHNOPS]

(0=0)=(1=1)

0=1

Zero equals one through the law of identity where all numbers equivocate as contexts.

(0 == 0) == (1 == 1)

that means that the first has the same validity than the second. Its not about the number, its about the validity.

(cat on the table) == (dog on the chair)

If the cat is on the table so then the dog is on the chair.

But the cat is not the same as the dog, and the table is not the same as the chair.

The cat is the same as the dog in the respect both are mammals.
The table is the same as the chair as both are furniture.

Yes, but then you cannot do this:

cat == dog

you must do:

mammal == mammal

[Eodnhoj7]

(0 == 0) == (1 == 1)

that means that the first has the same validity than the second. Its not about the number, its about the validity.

(cat on the table) == (dog on the chair)

If the cat is on the table so then the dog is on the chair.

But the cat is not the same as the dog, and the table is not the same as the chair.

The cat is the same as the dog in the respect both are mammals.
The table is the same as the chair as both are furniture.

Yes, but then you cannot do this:

cat == dog

you must do:

mammal == mammal

1. Mammal=mammal means nothing unless mammal points to something beyond it.

2. When equating two different phenomenon a third element is needed for this equivocation; identity is triadic: the phenomenon, the other phenomenon, and the relationship.

2a. Mammal is the relationship of dog and cat.

[CHNOPS]

You first define one thing and then you compare that thing.

If you define a dog as "mammal" and you define a cat as "mammal", then you have 2 mammals.

Then, you can compare mammals with mammals.

"mammal == mammal" is not saying nothing. That is what you did when you define dog as mammal and cat as mammal to say that:

dog == cat

In order to show your error, I said that you must do:

mammal == mammal

and you will see with that that there is not the same as saying that "cat == dog".


Mammal is not the relationship of dog and cat. Is just another abstraction of what a dog or cat are.

The relationships are the comparisons: are the 2 parts equals? are differents? one is more than the other?


So, this:

"(0=0)=(1=1)"

can only have sense if we define:

(0=0): Equality of 0
(1=1): Equality of 1

in order to say that "the equality of 0 and 0 is the same as the equality of 1"

And that is True.

0=0 is True, both parts are Equals.

1=1 is True, both parts are Equals.


Then:

True = True


And that have all the sense.

[Eodnhoj7]

You first define one thing and then you compare that thing.

If you define a dog as "mammal" and you define a cat as "mammal", then you have 2 mammals.

Then, you can compare mammals with mammals.

"mammal == mammal" is not saying nothing. That is what you did when you define dog as mammal and cat as mammal to say that:

dog == cat

In order to show your error, I said that you must do:

mammal == mammal

and you will see with that that there is not the same as saying that "cat == dog".


Mammal is not the relationship of dog and cat. Is just another abstraction of what a dog or cat are.

The relationships are the comparisons: are the 2 parts equals? are differents? one is more than the other?


So, this:

"(0=0)=(1=1)"

can only have sense if we define:

(0=0): Equality of 0
(1=1): Equality of 1

in order to say that "the equality of 0 and 0 is the same as the equality of 1"

And that is True.

0=0 is True, both parts are Equals.

1=1 is True, both parts are Equals.


Then:

True = True


And that have all the sense.

Two mammals share the same nature of mammal thus the two are connected as one through their relationship, their relationship is "mammal".

Equality is a relationship as it is a connection and if phenomena relate then they equivocate.

This is tied to my second point, which is best phrased through questions:

Where does total equality exist?

If total equality does not exist then is it not possible anything can equate if a similarity occurs?