What is P and -P?

[Eodnhoj7]

Say what??

No.

If (P=P)=(-P=-P), that would only be because the whole thing in parentheses on the left-hand side amounts to something (such as "true" per one suggestion above) that's the same as the whole thing in parentheses on the right-hand side. You can't take just one segment of the parentheticals and claim that (P=P)=(-P=-P) implies that those segments are equal (or identical, or whatever you're using "=" to refer to exactly).

It would be like saying that since "The man who cuts my hair" has the same denotation as "The man who bought my car last week," because they both refer to Joe Jones, this implies that the denotations of "my hair" and "my car" are identical. Obviously that's not the case.

Both the hair and the car equivocate as property.

Using a number line both +1 and -1 are equal lengths from point 0 thus equivocate in these respects.

(1) They're not identical.
(2) Equivocation is a fallacy when we're doing logic.

Both the length of space as one and negative one, on a number line, are equal.

The fallacy of equivocation is dependent upon equivocating it to an assertion thus it contradicts itself.

If all equivocation is a fallacy in logic then P=P is a contradiction,

[Eodnhoj7]

Also, what is the following supposed to be saying?

From where are you getting the notion that both P and -P exist through the law of identity?

P is standardly a variable representing a proposition. How would that "exist through the law of identity"?

P requires P=P in order to exist.
-P requires -P=-P in order to exist.

Repeating that makes it no less nonsensical.

The law of identity is required for both P and -P. P and -P both equivocate through the common law of identity. Without the law of identity, as a middle term, they do not equivocate. The common bond of the law of identity allows for equivocation just in the same manner a glass half full of water, half full of air, allows both the water and air to equivocate under the basic form of the glass.

[Eodnhoj7]

Both the empty space and the water equivocate through the glass considering both take shape through the empty glass.

This tells me that you don't understand the term "equivocate."

You need to learn the basics of this stuff before you try to forward arguments about it.

Equivocation is repeating form, symmetry found through common limits. The empty space and water share the same form of the glass as a common underlying limit.

[Terrapin Station]

If all equivocation is a fallacy in logic then P=P is a contradiction,

First, equivocation refers to using the same term to refer to something different--a different respect/aspect, a different part, a different sense, a different temporal context, etc. Any difference, where we're treating the term as the same.

P=P would be fallacious if someone were using one P to refer to something with any differences from the other P, but usually we don't do that. The P on both sides refers to exactly "one and the same" thing, in the same respect, the same aspects, no different parts, no different senses, in the same temporal context, etc.

[Eodnhoj7]

If all equivocation is a fallacy in logic then P=P is a contradiction,

First, equivocation refers to using the same term to refer to something different--a different respect/aspect, a different part, a different sense, a different temporal context, etc. Any difference, where we're treating the term as the same.

P=P would be fallacious if someone were using one P to refer to something with any differences from the other P, but usually we don't do that. The P on both sides refers to exactly "one and the same" thing, in the same respect, the same aspects, no different parts, no different senses, in the same temporal context, etc.

Yes equivocation occurs through variation, 3+1=2+2 observes simultaneously different numbers defining the same thing. Equivocation is thus symmetry where different properties share common bonds, in the case of 3+1=2+2 the number 4 is a common bond.

P may represent one identity under two different circumstances which define it differently. For example a person in x time and space is not the same person in y time and space yet P=P observes the same person.

[Terrapin Station]

If all equivocation is a fallacy in logic then P=P is a contradiction,

First, equivocation refers to using the same term to refer to something different--a different respect/aspect, a different part, a different sense, a different temporal context, etc. Any difference, where we're treating the term as the same.

P=P would be fallacious if someone were using one P to refer to something with any differences from the other P, but usually we don't do that. The P on both sides refers to exactly "one and the same" thing, in the same respect, the same aspects, no different parts, no different senses, in the same temporal context, etc.

Yes equivocation occurs through variation, 3+1=2+2 observes simultaneously different numbers defining the same thing. Equivocation is thus symmetry where different properties share common bonds, in the case of 3+1=2+2 the number 4 is a common bond.

P may represent one identity under two different circumstances which define it differently. For example a person in x time and space is not the same person in y time and space yet P=P observes the same person.

I'm trying to teach you something and you're just making up stuff in response.

[Eodnhoj7]

First, equivocation refers to using the same term to refer to something different--a different respect/aspect, a different part, a different sense, a different temporal context, etc. Any difference, where we're treating the term as the same.

P=P would be fallacious if someone were using one P to refer to something with any differences from the other P, but usually we don't do that. The P on both sides refers to exactly "one and the same" thing, in the same respect, the same aspects, no different parts, no different senses, in the same temporal context, etc.

Yes equivocation occurs through variation, 3+1=2+2 observes simultaneously different numbers defining the same thing. Equivocation is thus symmetry where different properties share common bonds, in the case of 3+1=2+2 the number 4 is a common bond.

P may represent one identity under two different circumstances which define it differently. For example a person in x time and space is not the same person in y time and space yet P=P observes the same person.

I'm trying to teach you something and you're just making up stuff in response.

Yet the "made up stuff" are still valid points....are you sure you understand what you are teaching?

The same contexts in which something is defined eventually regresses to different contexts.

[Terrapin Station]

The same contexts in which something is defined eventually regresses to different contexts.

If you're doing logic, you can't do that, though, or you're committing the fallacy of equivocation.

[Eodnhoj7]

The same contexts in which something is defined eventually regresses to different contexts.

If you're doing logic, you can't do that, though, or you're committing the fallacy of equivocation.

This regress results in variation, variation is definition. All phenomenon regress to different contexts, it is through this regress definition occurs.

[Terrapin Station]

The same contexts in which something is defined eventually regresses to different contexts.

If you're doing logic, you can't do that, though, or you're committing the fallacy of equivocation.

This regress results in variation, variation is definition. All phenomenon regress to different contexts, it is through this regress definition occurs.

"This regress"--what "regress"?

[Skepdick]

If you're doing logic, you can't do that.

Says who?

You seem to be treating logic as something fixed/prescriptive, rather than something designed by humans.

Some logics may be designed to prevent you from doing that.
Some logics may be designed to allow you to do precisely that.

[Terrapin Station]

If you're doing logic, you can't do that.

Says who?

Says the conventions of logic, because equivocation doesn't guarantee validity, which is the whole idea of fallacies. Fallacies are "moves" made in arguments that result in a failure of the argument to guarantee validity. (Validity being the impossibility of premises being true and a conclusion false, where traditionally "and" in the definition is rather treated as an inclusive "or.")

[Skepdick]

Says the conventions of logic

The conventions of WHICH logic?

There are so many systems of logic!

[Terrapin Station]

Says the conventions of logic

The conventions of WHICH logic?

There are so many systems of logic!

Name a species where equivocations aren't fallacious.

[Skepdick]

Name a species where equivocations aren't fallacious.

So now you are fond of social norms?

Yesterday you were arguing against the wrongness of murder.