P=P is a Contradiction

[henry quirk]

Because of circular reasoning, the beginning is the same as the end. It is arguing identity is a loop which contradicts the standard fallacies.

so, if I say I am me (and no other), that is, quirk is quirk, my self-reference (circular reasoning) is contradictory and -- in fact -- I am not me

ok, then...

You have actually identified the mistake. "quirk is quirk," is correct, "quirk = quirk," would be wrong. It is actually incorrect to say B=B except in algebra, where B is a symbol for a number, because equals means, "has the same value." In all other cases it should be, B is B, which only means B is itself, and not anything else. A thing does not "equal" itself, it just "is" itself. Saying a thing, X "equals" (has the same value as) a thing X implies, illogically, that X is more than one thing, which is where Eodnhoj7 went wrong.

yeah, I don't care

[Eodnhoj7]

P=P is a tautology not a contradiction. Tautologies are always true and so say nothing. Contradictions are the opposite. They are always false. For example suppose I say, " It will rain today or it wont." True in all cases and tells me nothing about the weather.

False a contradiction shows an absence of form through the opposition of phenomena having the inability to connect. This same formlessness is founded in circularity given it is an empty loop. The loop only have value when defined through another loop. A new assertion is what justifies the original assertion by providing definition but with circularity no knew assertion is formed.

Second all contradictions are grounded in truth values. 2+2=5 shows the elements of 2 and 5 as existing as true given they occur through 1 repeating thus a form results. This second element shows circularity as having an intrinsic form through the repetition of a phenomenon.

Thus circularity is both a contradiction and not a contradiction. It is not a contradiction given a form results, it results in contradiction because the form is empty.

"A tautology is certainly true, a proposition possibly, and a contradiction certainly not."
Wittgenstein FROM https://readingwittgenstein.blogspot.co ... ction.html
Read some Wittgenstein!

Fallacy of authority, all contradictions are derived from opposing truth values thus truth values exist within contradictions.

For example, as stated before, 2+2=5 observes 2 and 5 as rational entities which compose the contradiction. 2 and 5 exist as true.

Second 2+2=5 is true as a contradiction thus a secondary truth value is derived from the contradiction.

[Eodnhoj7]

Absolutely NOT.

If "Arab" has no commonalities then what does it point to?

I said it did not point to a region.
Are you saying that an Arab in the USA is not really an Arab?
Are you saying that all Arabs are the same?

Their ancestry derives from a common region thus a commonality occurs.

[Immanuel Can]

You didn't even read the thread.

I agree that I'm not following the thread.

That's too bad. I'm not interested in the side road that interests you. Feel free to hold forth on it as you like...I'm working on the law of identity, and nothing else.

Thanks.

[Immanuel Can]

What's your point?

For you?

None.

[RCSaunders]

so, if I say I am me (and no other), that is, quirk is quirk, my self-reference (circular reasoning) is contradictory and -- in fact -- I am not me

ok, then...

You have actually identified the mistake. "quirk is quirk," is correct, "quirk = quirk," would be wrong. It is actually incorrect to say B=B except in algebra, where B is a symbol for a number, because equals means, "has the same value." In all other cases it should be, B is B, which only means B is itself, and not anything else. A thing does not "equal" itself, it just "is" itself. Saying a thing, X "equals" (has the same value as) a thing X implies, illogically, that X is more than one thing, which is where Eodnhoj7 went wrong.

yeah, I don't care

Well, see if I complement you again, you old curmudgeon.

[raw_thought]

False a contradiction shows an absence of form through the opposition of phenomena having the inability to connect. This same formlessness is founded in circularity given it is an empty loop. The loop only have value when defined through another loop. A new assertion is what justifies the original assertion by providing definition but with circularity no knew assertion is formed.

Second all contradictions are grounded in truth values. 2+2=5 shows the elements of 2 and 5 as existing as true given they occur through 1 repeating thus a form results. This second element shows circularity as having an intrinsic form through the repetition of a phenomenon.

Thus circularity is both a contradiction and not a contradiction. It is not a contradiction given a form results, it results in contradiction because the form is empty.

"A tautology is certainly true, a proposition possibly, and a contradiction certainly not."
Wittgenstein FROM https://readingwittgenstein.blogspot.co ... ction.html
Read some Wittgenstein!

Fallacy of authority, all contradictions are derived from opposing truth values thus truth values exist within contradictions.

For example, as stated before, 2+2=5 observes 2 and 5 as rational entities which compose the contradiction. 2 and 5 exist as true.

Second 2+2=5 is true as a contradiction thus a secondary truth value is derived from the contradiction.

Actually, that is not the fallacy of authority. many misunderstand.

[raw_thought]

http://www.nizkor.com/features/fallacie ... ority.html
If you had read Wittgenstein you would have seen that contradictions are always false. A and not A cannot both be true. Can you give me an example where both A and not A are both true? You are probably confusing truth with validity. here is an argument that is true but invalid. 1. Obama was president.2. Nixon was president. 3. Therefore dogs are mammals. Here is a syllogism that is valid but false. 1. All Martians eat snakes. 2 Bob is a Martian. 3. Therefore Bob eats snakes. Yes, contradictions are invalid. But the result is always false.

[raw_thought]

there is nothing wrong with appealing to authority. For example, every scientific organization in the world supports the proposition that global warming is real and we have facilitated it. Is that 100% proof ? No. But it makes the probability that global warming exists outrageously probable. However, I did not just appeal to authority. I suggested that you read more on the subject.

[Skepdick]

http://www.nizkor.com/features/fallacie ... ority.html
If you had read Wittgenstein you would have seen that contradictions are always false. A and not A cannot both be true. Can you give me an example where both A and not A are both true?

A: It's raining
not A: It's not raining

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjXvkIzUTtk

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

[raw_thought]

Are you prepared to say that the queen of England lives on Mars? I am not joking! If contradictions lead to true conclusions and since from a contradiction everything follows, it follows that the queen of England lives on mars. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion

[raw_thought]

Its raining and not raining??? So right here and now water is falling from the sky and no water is falling from the sky???

[raw_thought]

Of course " somewhere it is raining" and" somewhere it is not raining" is not a contradiction.

[Skepdick]

from a contradiction everything follows

That is not true in all logics. It's only true in explosive logics.

[Sculptor]

What's your point?

For you?

None.

No need to tell you you are pointless. I already know that.