P=-P II

[Eodnhoj7]

1. (P=P) is the law of identity.

2. (-P=-P) is the law of identity.

3. ((P=P)=(-P=-P)) is the law of identity equal to the law of identity.

4. (P=P)=P and (-P=-P)= -P is the law of identity as equal to a singular expression; (P=P) is reducible to P, (-P=-P) is reducible to -P.

5. ((P=P)=(-P=-P)) is reducible to (P=-P).

6. P=-P cannot exist due to the law of non-contradiction however ((P=P)=(-P=-P)) is valid.

7. The law of non-contradiction does not exist if (P=P) exists as (P=P) necessitates ((P=P)=(-P=-P)) which is (P=-P); (P=P) does not exist if the law of non-contradiction exists as (P=/=-P) but (P=P) necessitates ((P=P)=(-P=-P)) which is (P=-P).

8. Either the law of non contradiction exists or the law of identity exists, if not then both exist meaning neither exists.

[Scott Mayers]

You are confusing 'addresses' with the 'values IN addresses' when you assert that

(P = P) = (-P = -P) as implying that P = -P.

The law of identity is better expressed as a container like,

X[] = X[] refering to the address that you can relabel as "P" or "-P" for the "X" for instance. The "P = P" DEFINES the MEANING of these as 'equivalent' but would be more like X[P] = X[P] or X[-P] = X[-P].

You can also have

X[P] and some Y[P], such that the addresses reference the equality of the contents. X[P] ≠ Y[P] refers to the memory labels with 'P' acting as a dummy value. They can be equal or not. To make it clearer, we can write

X1[P1] and X2[P2]

...and then specify the different meanings. What matters is that we express these in a way that can be understood. But I believe that you are trying to argue something about reality, not the way we express logical descriptions.

[Eodnhoj7]

You are confusing 'addresses' with the 'values IN addresses' when you assert that

(P = P) = (-P = -P) as implying that P = -P.

The law of identity is better expressed as a container like,

X[] = X[] refering to the address that you can relabel as "P" or "-P" for the "X" for instance. The "P = P" DEFINES the MEANING of these as 'equivalent' but would be more like X[P] = X[P] or X[-P] = X[-P].

You can also have

X[P] and some Y[P], such that the addresses reference the equality of the contents. X[P] ≠ Y[P] refers to the memory labels with 'P' acting as a dummy value. They can be equal or not. To make it clearer, we can write

X1[P1] and X2[P2]

...and then specify the different meanings. What matters is that we express these in a way that can be understood. But I believe that you are trying to argue something about reality, not the way we express logical descriptions.

Logical descriptions are rooted in reality. As rooted in reality they are a part, or rather an expression, of reality thus maintain a degree of autonomous as they are expressions that are distinct (ie they exist for what they are).

(P=P) observes P as a container for -P thus in arguing for (P=P) it contains (-P=-P). -P as a container within a container contains -P as (--P=--P) thus (-P=-P) contains (P=P). Both P=P and -P=-P are containers for each other and are effectively united and equivalent.

As equivalent ((P=P)=(-P=-P)) occurs with this being reducible to P=-P.

Dually both (P=P) and (-P=-P) equate as both expressions of the law of identity; to say ((P=P)=(-P=-P)) is to say the law of identity is equivalent to itself.

[Scott Mayers]

(P=P) observes P as a container for -P thus in arguing for (P=P) it contains (-P=-P). -P as a container within a container contains -P as (--P=--P) thus (-P=-P) contains (P=P). Both P=P and -P=-P are containers for each other and are effectively united and equivalent.

As equivalent ((P=P)=(-P=-P)) occurs with this being reducible to P=-P.

This is incorrect reasoning. This is not reducible to P = -P.

Given the binary value 0 for false and 1 for true,

If P is true, it is P = 1. This makes -P = not-1 = 0

Then, substitute P = 1 and -P = 0, into your ((P=P)=(-P=-P))

((1 = 1) = ( 0 = 0)) which is 'true' as a WHOLE statement since it reduces to
((1) = (1)) to simply 1.

If you assigned P = 1, -P = 0. This is because -P = -(P) = -(1) = 0.



Edit: deleted accidental leftover quote

[trokanmariel]

First, I want to congratulate you on your mathematics. I was able to follow it, logically speaking, and feel able to have a discussion with you about it.

I'll espouse a different set of keys.

Law of identity = (1 = -2)

1 = free to be the alternative

-2 = not free to be the alternative = (must be 1)

must be 1 = left to right sequence contradicts second not needing language.


Samuel L Jackson oversee me, writing the completion

[promethean75]

"check out the big brain on trok!" - Samuel L. Jackson, Pulp Logic

[trokanmariel]

"check out the big brain on trok!" - Samuel L. Jackson, Pulp Logic

What did you think of the conclusion, to the sequence, about the left to right sequence?

[Eodnhoj7]

(P=P) observes P as a container for -P thus in arguing for (P=P) it contains (-P=-P). -P as a container within a container contains -P as (--P=--P) thus (-P=-P) contains (P=P). Both P=P and -P=-P are containers for each other and are effectively united and equivalent.

As equivalent ((P=P)=(-P=-P)) occurs with this being reducible to P=-P.

This is incorrect reasoning. This is not reducible to P = -P.

Given the binary value 0 for false and 1 for true,

If P is true, it is P = 1. This makes -P = not-1 = 0

Then, substitute P = 1 and -P = 0, into your ((P=P)=(-P=-P))

((1 = 1) = ( 0 = 0)) which is 'true' as a WHOLE statement since it reduces to
((1) = (1)) to simply 1.

If you assigned P = 1, -P = 0. This is because -P = -(P) = -(1) = 0.



Dually both (P=P) and (-P=-P) equate as both expressions of the law of identity; to say ((P=P)=(-P=-P)) is to say the law of identity is equivalent to itself.

[/quote]
If falsity is a deficiency in truth we result in -1 not 0 as -1 is a deficiency of one equating to a deficiency in truth. 0 is no truth. Falsity requires a preexisting truth therefore is deficiency. 0 is not even false, it is nothing.

1. P=1
2. -P=-1
3. --P=--1
4. --1 (as a double negation) equals 1 therefore P=--P.

[Eodnhoj7]

First, I want to congratulate you on your mathematics. I was able to follow it, logically speaking, and feel able to have a discussion with you about it.

I'll espouse a different set of keys.

Law of identity = (1 = -2)

1 = free to be the alternative

-2 = not free to be the alternative = (must be 1)

must be 1 = left to right sequence contradicts second not needing language.


Samuel L Jackson oversee me, writing the completion

One on a number line and -2 on a number line both equate as lines.

[trokanmariel]

First, I want to congratulate you on your mathematics. I was able to follow it, logically speaking, and feel able to have a discussion with you about it.

I'll espouse a different set of keys.

Law of identity = (1 = -2)

1 = free to be the alternative

-2 = not free to be the alternative = (must be 1)

must be 1 = left to right sequence contradicts second not needing language.


Samuel L Jackson oversee me, writing the completion

One on a number line and -2 on a number line both equate as lines.

Do you mean lines, in terms of the left to right reference?

[Scott Mayers]

(P=P) observes P as a container for -P thus in arguing for (P=P) it contains (-P=-P). -P as a container within a container contains -P as (--P=--P) thus (-P=-P) contains (P=P). Both P=P and -P=-P are containers for each other and are effectively united and equivalent.

As equivalent ((P=P)=(-P=-P)) occurs with this being reducible to P=-P.

This is incorrect reasoning. This is not reducible to P = -P.

Given the binary value 0 for false and 1 for true,

If P is true, it is P = 1. This makes -P = not-1 = 0

Then, substitute P = 1 and -P = 0, into your ((P=P)=(-P=-P))

((1 = 1) = ( 0 = 0)) which is 'true' as a WHOLE statement since it reduces to
((1) = (1)) to simply 1.

If you assigned P = 1, -P = 0. This is because -P = -(P) = -(1) = 0.

Dually both (P=P) and (-P=-P) equate as both expressions of the law of identity; to say ((P=P)=(-P=-P)) is to say the law of identity is equivalent to itself.

If falsity is a deficiency in truth we result in -1 not 0 as -1 is a deficiency of one equating to a deficiency in truth. 0 is no truth. Falsity requires a preexisting truth therefore is deficiency. 0 is not even false, it is nothing.

1. P=1
2. -P=-1
3. --P=--1
4. --1 (as a double negation) equals 1 therefore P=--P.

Weird incorrect thinking. The negative numbers are "Inverses" of the ORDER from zero. The Logical "complement" is in binary and the '-' does not refer to 'negative' in logic but complementary.

For ALL systems, the "complement" is defined as follows:

For any system, Kn = {0, 1,....} represents the set of n values. If n represents the count, then

Kn = {0, ....P}, where P = n - 1 and represents the highest value. n = 0 is called the "minimum" where "P" is the "Maximum".

Then the complement, such as "-A" [or "Ā"] is defined as

Ā = P subtract A. So in binary this just happens to mean that P = 1.

Given K3 = {0, 1, 2},

If A is a variable and A = 2, then the complement of this is P-A = (2) - (2) = 0.
If B is a variable and B = 1, then the complement of this is P-A = (2) - (1) = 1.

Note that although the '-' above in the "P-A" is subtracted, by itself this is not how negative numbers are defined. Subtraction is defined after addition is defined and then becomes the "inverse (operation) of addition". A "complement" is whatever is left that adds up to the whole. This is called a 'negation' when it DENIES the stated term.

You are appearing to be trying to nullify any form of reasoning. What is your motive? Are you being religious? ...political? If you succeed to 'prove' it wrong, you'd require the very thing you are denying to prove yourself correct. It's perpetually self-destructive because it begs what magical alternative you think could possibly exist as a replacement.

[Eodnhoj7]

First, I want to congratulate you on your mathematics. I was able to follow it, logically speaking, and feel able to have a discussion with you about it.

I'll espouse a different set of keys.

Law of identity = (1 = -2)

1 = free to be the alternative

-2 = not free to be the alternative = (must be 1)

must be 1 = left to right sequence contradicts second not needing language.


Samuel L Jackson oversee me, writing the completion

One on a number line and -2 on a number line both equate as lines.

Do you mean lines, in terms of the left to right reference?

Left is a relative right and right is a relative left, but yes 1 and -2 are both lines on a number line.

[Eodnhoj7]

This is incorrect reasoning. This is not reducible to P = -P.

Given the binary value 0 for false and 1 for true,

If P is true, it is P = 1. This makes -P = not-1 = 0

Then, substitute P = 1 and -P = 0, into your ((P=P)=(-P=-P))

((1 = 1) = ( 0 = 0)) which is 'true' as a WHOLE statement since it reduces to
((1) = (1)) to simply 1.

If you assigned P = 1, -P = 0. This is because -P = -(P) = -(1) = 0.

If falsity is a deficiency in truth we result in -1 not 0 as -1 is a deficiency of one equating to a deficiency in truth. 0 is no truth. Falsity requires a preexisting truth therefore is deficiency. 0 is not even false, it is nothing.

1. P=1
2. -P=-1
3. --P=--1
4. --1 (as a double negation) equals 1 therefore P=--P.

Weird incorrect thinking. The negative numbers are "Inverses" of the ORDER from zero. The Logical "complement" is in binary and the '-' does not refer to 'negative' in logic but complementary.

For ALL systems, the "complement" is defined as follows:

For any system, Kn = {0, 1,....} represents the set of n values. If n represents the count, then

Kn = {0, ....P}, where P = n - 1 and represents the highest value. n = 0 is called the "minimum" where "P" is the "Maximum".

Then the complement, such as "-A" [or "Ā"] is defined as

Ā = P subtract A. So in binary this just happens to mean that P = 1.

Given K3 = {0, 1, 2},

If A is a variable and A = 2, then the complement of this is P-A = (2) - (2) = 0.
If B is a variable and B = 1, then the complement of this is P-A = (2) - (1) = 1.

Note that although the '-' above in the "P-A" is subtracted, by itself this is not how negative numbers are defined. Subtraction is defined after addition is defined and then becomes the "inverse (operation) of addition". A "complement" is whatever is left that adds up to the whole. This is called a 'negation' when it DENIES the stated term.

You are appearing to be trying to nullify any form of reasoning. What is your motive? Are you being religious? ...political? If you succeed to 'prove' it wrong, you'd require the very thing you are denying to prove yourself correct. It's perpetually self-destructive because it begs what magical alternative you think could possibly exist as a replacement.

1. "+" and "-" are both opposites. Inverse: "opposite or contrary in position, direction, order, or effect."

https://www.google.com/search?q=inverse ... e&ie=UTF-8

However let's go with your axioms and state "negatives" are "inverses" of zero. Given another axiom that negatives are complementary to positives (they combine) then positives are inverses of zero as well. -1=/=0 is one axiom; 1=/=0 is an axiom derived from this first axiom. However 1=0 under the following examples:

1a. A totality of forms is one. This one is absent of form, given the totality of forms results in no form as nothing is distinguishable, thus 0 (as nothing quantifies as 0).
1b. All 0d points are quantifiable thus equate to multiples of one; a 0d point is quantifiably nothing thus zero.

1=0 when applied in measurements.



2. A double negative is a positive thus positives result from negation.

3. Logic is self-negation; to result in the negation of one mode of reasoning results in a new mode of reasoning to take its place. To destroy one logic is to create another, to create one logic is to destroy another.

[Scott Mayers]

1. "+" and "-" are both opposites. Inverse: "opposite or contrary in position, direction, order, or effect." [/quote]
The "-" in logic is a complement that only resembles subtraction when you reference "-X" as "U - X"; the "+" in logic means "OR", not 'plus'.

[Eodnhoj7]

1. "+" and "-" are both opposites. Inverse: "opposite or contrary in position, direction, order, or effect."

The "-" in logic is a complement that only resembles subtraction when you reference "-X" as "U - X"; the "+" in logic means "OR", not 'plus'.
[/quote]

A positive value has as its opposite a negative value.

Outside standard logic, a "+P" means a "positive P" thus P exists; a "-P" means a "negative P" thus P does not exist.

Taking the symbols of "+" and "-" out of the equation due to language differences, a positive P is equivalent to the negation of a negative P. Negative P contains P as the negation of negative P (which is P). P contains negative P as the negation of P. Value is derived from negation thus P and Negative P equate as one contains the other.

1. P results from the negation of negative of P.
2. Negative P results from the negation of P.
3. P results in -P through its negation; Negative P results in P through its negation.
4. Both P and Negative P result in each other through negation; they switch positions when both are nullified. Because they can switch positions, through negation alone, they equate through but not without this negation. Negation allows two seemingly opposites to equate.