Rules are group agreement subject to fallacy of authority, equivocation, bandwagon, etc. The fallacies prove this through there own nature.

Regardless, how can you logically argue that I am against these interpretations (perspectives) if I am agreeing with them and say they are correct?

Like in this statement:

The definitions you argue are correct under standard axioms of mathematics. The problem, as axioms, is that they are subject to a multitude of fallacies: authority, bandwagon, no true scotsman (pseudo fallacy for some), straw man (the axioms form a position not previously held), red herring (each axiom diverts to another axiom), etc.

The axioms are determined as true because of the arguments, as strucutures, which stem from them. These argument/structures, in turn are justified according to there symmetry with symmetry being the replication of certain qualities/quantities that show a common bond — eodnhoj7

You are arguing that I disagree with you, when in fact it is false. The argument is premised on a false premise.

Thank you for listing all these things out, it really saves me the trouble, of having to collect them on my own. Now I can address them in one post. I am so flattered you took time out of your day to do all the work for me, thanks.


4)All straight lines are Pi — eodnhoj7

Pi is equal to C/D where Pi is Equal to C if D is 1. This means the diameter, as a line, fits in the 1 length of the Circumferance "Pi times" as one line. Pi as a length, through the circumferance, is straight line. The straight line can be curved to form a radian, which means the curved line can be straightened out as well.


Pi as a line, varies in length with the circle however is always the same measurement. — eodnhoj7

Yes, Pi as a continuous fractal that is irrational and transcendental relative to the context of the framework which defines it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi

Pi as infinite may be viewed as 3.141, 3.14159, or 3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510582097494459230781640628620899862803482534211706798214808651328230664709384460955058223172535940812848111745028410270193852110555964462294895493038196442881097566593344612847564823378678316527120190914.

So the application of Pi is determined by how precise we choose to interpret it. Applying 3.141 as pi is not the same as 3.14159, however both definitions are constant. They change relative to where we round them off, hence Pi has a subjective element of interpretation. However one measurement of Pi is relatively more accurate than the other. Pi is subject to equivocation in these respects causing alot of fault in the mathematical community, but considering it is a community which determines these truths we are left with a fallacy of authority and bandwagon.


5) The circle, through infinite Pi's observes the circle composed of infinite angles with these angles equivalent to degrees as a number much less than one approaching 0. — eodnhoj7

Yes, but you will have to quote in context where you got this portion of the argument.

If Pi is a length, observed in Point 4 above, where Pi is a circumferance leading to 3.141 and the Diameter is 1, we are left with Pi Diameter's as one diameter where Pi is a straight line through the Pi Diameter's acting as 1 diameter.

Now if the diameter is Pi, and Pi equals C/D as C/Pi then C = 9.869...

This continually expands when we throw in the Diameter as 9.869... .

Now The circumferance as (n→∞)Pi, and the diameter as Pi observes the Diameter existing inside the circumference equal to (n→∞) times. Pi, as a length through the diameter, and the circumferance composed of (n→∞)D as straight lines observes the circumferance as a number of angles approaching infinity.

Because these angles are continually approaching infinity, the angles are always approaching point zero. This is considering each curve on the line is conducive to a fraction of a radian where the radian as 57.296 becomes a fraction of itself as a fractal degree (as a fractal radian) of 1/(10^(n→∞)).

Now the fractal radian as a degree of 1/(10^(n→∞)) observes a fraction of a curve, but is nonetheless a curve. Now the circumference as composed of radians, is composed of curves with the circumference as continual radians approaching point 0 observing the circumference as infinite fractal curves.

Considering these fractal curves occur through fractal degrees as angles, "the the circle composed of infinite angles with these angles equivalent to degrees as a number much less than one approaching 0".

In these respects the curve is inseperable from an angle, while each curve itself is composed of further angles in itself. The curve as infinite angles, which is composed of further angles, observes a continuum where the angle is always approach a point zero, even though it may be more than one.




6) The line as a quantum angle — eodnhoj7

Yes an angle of 1/(10^(n→∞)) degrees is equivalent to a line as the angle can only be observed as a line. The angle and line are inseperable with the projective nature of the angle in one direction being synonymous to the line as going in one direction.


So a line between two points observes the alternation between being and nonbeing (void) — eodnhoj7

The line as composed of infinite lines is composed of infinite 0d points, which can be observed in the premised definition (commonly accepted in mathematics) as infinite 0d points necessitating infinite 1d lines.

The line as infinite lines and infinite 0d points as the inversion of one line into another, observes the line as a form of alternation being the existing (being) lines and void (points) considering the point is merely inversion of one line into another. The line exists through infinite alternation between line and further lines. Infinite 0d points, with 0d points being the inversion of one line into many lines, observes the line as infinite change conducive to no change.




However if the line connects the points, it necessitates that through the line the points are directed towards eachother simultaneously and the line becomes non directional considering the points are directed towards eachother through eachother as eachother. — eodnhoj7

Yes if Point A is directed to Point B, where Point A and Point B are both 0 both points are the same. So Point B equal to Point A as 0 = 0 observes that the line is simultaneously directed in the opposite direction connecting the points. The line as non-directional, as a connector between points, necessitates the points as directed towards eachother as points. This makes no sense, if it is occurring simultaneously, as the 0d point effectively is nothing. It only makes sense if the point existing through the point observes the point as directed through itself as itself thus necessitating a 1 dimensional nature as well where the line is deficient in direction, except through the 1d points which compose it. Hence the line is negative direction and composed of infinite 1d points:

The negative dimensional line in turn is composed of infinite 1d points. — eodnhoj7

Hence the line a absent of direction as negative dimensional, as a connector and not a thing in itself, observes it as approximator between multiple 1d points in the respect any connection observes multiple points. Multiple points necessitates a deficiency in unity in one respect, while this connection necessitates unity. So the 0d point directed to the 0d point observes:

Void must be void of itself, so the 1d line observes the void of void or the 0d point dividing itself as infinity through the line. This 1d line is an inversion of the of both the 0d point through 0d point (or an inversion of inversion) and the -1 dimensional line. — eodnhoj7

Where the canceling of the 0d point into 1d points, through there self-direction of the line which effectively ceases in direction itself as negative dimensional (described above),

The 0d point cancels itself out to units as multiplicity, but also Unity as pure directed movement. Nothing cancels itself out into pure being. — eodnhoj7

but this nothingness canceling itself out into pure being observes being in a state of multiplicity due to Being exist through void with this void inverting one being into many.


3) The line as composed of infinite points is composed of infinite lines, hence the line is composed of infinite circles as all lines exist as Pi. — eodnhoj7

All lines as diameters considering all lines can be measured in Pi, necessitate these infinite lines as diameters resulting in infinite circumferances where a diameter of x length and a diameter of y length may differ in length, but when observed as 1 diameter in themselves are effectively connected to pi through the equation π = (π=C)/(1=D) ∴ (π=D) ↔ (π=C)*(1=D), where each length as different from another length, as one length in itself is equivalent to Pi where Pi as a length is composed of infinite lengths as observed in Point 4 ("all straight lines are equivalent to Pi" however Pi is constant state of changing numbers.).

Because the line as Pi necessitates the circumference as Pi(Pi), at minimum, the line as different from another line as one Pi different from another Pi (considering Pi is determined by its rounding off), observes each line as a diameter conducive to x(Pi) (with x representing different calculation of Pi observing different degree of accuracy) resulting in x((Pi)Pi). This leads to:

4) The line is composed as infinite circles projecting, hence the line is equivalent not just to infinite points but infinite quantum circles as well. — eodnhoj7

where "quantum" observes a circle much "smaller" than another circle necessitated by the accuracy of Pi in determining the above measurements.

3.141 << 3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751058209749445923078164062862089986280348253421170679821480865132823066470938446095505822317253594081284811174502841027019385211055596446229489549303819644288109756659334461284756482337867831652712019091456485669234603486104543266482133936072602491412737245870066063155881748815209209628292540917153643678925903600113305305488204665213841469519415116094330572703657595919530921861173819326117931051185480744623799627495673518857527248912279381830119491298336733624406566430860213949463952247371907021798609437027705392

in terms of accuracy with this accuracy determining the size of the circle relative to another size of the circle. This is reflected further in:

5) Each line, as composed of infinite further lines, is composed of infinite "pi's" where the line as Pi is composed of further Pi's. Hence Pi is divided by an infinite number of Pi being divided by Pi. — eodnhoj7


Hence Pi dividing itself observes Pi as its own function of self-division conducive to 1 through the line where 1 is Pi as a function of perpetual self division.

f(x)= 3.14159→(x→∞)
............f(x)= (3.14159→(x→∞) =1
................f(x)= (3.14159→(x→∞)
.........................f(x)=... — eodnhoj7

****where "x" is equal to any number approaching infinity with the fraction of Pi observing all number approaching infinity. Because Pi is statistically random observing x is observing any number which proceeds from Pi and approaches infinity.


4. The radius is half of the diameter.

5. Each radius in itself is a diameter, of another circle. — eodnhoj7

So the Line existing as divided/multiplied by itself results in Pi multiplying/dividing itself considering the line as 1 length is Pi as a length. A line folded in half, results in two lines of equal length, with these lines existing as "1/2" the original line in respect to the original line but relative to themselves strictly exist as 2. The line as a length is the line simultaneously multiplying and dividing when folded through itself.

As the mutiplication/division of a length requires another length, Pi is a constant length of a line — eodnhoj7

Because the line exists as continuous, in the respect it is one infinity (composed of infinite lines), but as one infinity is it composed of further lines considering infinite exists if and only if there are finite phenomenon. The line as one infinity, equates it as well to not just an irrational/transcendental number such as Pi but also Euler's number and any number for that matter. However all lines as one length can be interpreted as any number considering this 1 line as a length is defined by the lengths which composed it (1 inch as 16 parts, 1 foot as 12 parts through 16 parts, etc.).


Pi is a unit of length as one is a unit of length, with both being continuous. All lines as 1 unit of length observes Pi as a unit of length. — eodnhoj7


hence a line equivalent to Pi where Pi becomes a length. — eodnhoj7


So while pi = c/d or c/2r we are left with the circumferance being pi if the diameter is one infinity and the radius is 2 infinities as one infinite. — eodnhoj7


Pi is a length, not just a ratio and alternates with 1 as the foundation of length. — eodnhoj7


All lines are equivalent to Pi just as all lines are equivalent to one in themselves. — eodnhoj7

etc, etc


Since the above quoted information has no basis in any existing mathematical or scientific laws and even seems to contradict them, doesn't that mean it is your own (not yet universally recognised) invention or interpretation (call it what you may)?

What are laws but group agreement? With group agreement determined by proof? And Proof determined by not just the symmetry of the framework but the symmetry between the framework and the observers?

Contradict where exactly if the laws are used as premises? And what laws are you talking about exactly since you no so much. Quote sources. I have for the line as well as fallacies, etc. Where are your sources? Could it not be said your argument is subjective?

2=1+1 is a subjective interpretation as 2 = 1+1, 2+1-1, 2+2-2, 2+3-3, to infinity.

To argue any number is equal to a specific function, is not irrational as all numbers are composed of infinite functions.

Pi is a relationship. It is not a line. The value 3.14159265359 may be applied to a dimension of length but the length or the line does not become pi. If pi is a line, wouldn't a line be pi? Does that compute logically for you?

Pi is not a line.
Pi is not a length.
Pi is not a circle.

What is a quantum angle?

Being and non-being do not comprise a continuum when they are exclusive. You say you adhere to the laws of logic, well, newsflash, they contradict that.

Lines are just lines and points are just points. Directionality is an additional condition, not a quality inherent in the definition or value of a line or its constituent points.

What are laws but group agreement? With group agreement determined by proof? And Proof determined by not just the symmetry of the framework but the symmetry between the framework and the observers? — eodnhoj7

Then, if you differ from the prevailing application of the laws of logic, you must be determined to be illogical. If you agree, then your statements should reflect that. As it turns out, you do not. Hence, you are illogical.

Instead of future explanations, please direct me to the source of your information. Perhaps that would more readily resolve this conflict.

Violations of the law of identity result in the informal logical fallacy known as equivocation...
In everyday language, violations of the law of identity introduce ambiguity into the discourse, making it difficult to form an interpretation at the desired level of specificity. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_identity).

Ambiguity is subjective to the framework of interpreters and suffers from an inherent ad-hominum nature where equivocation is subject to the ad-hominum fallacy as it is subject to the framework of the observer. To argue that an equivocation is an informal fallacy, when other's observe it as a formal fallacy in itself equivocation.

Are you trying to imply that these violations comprise or are derived from a law of logic? As you can see, they are expressly referred to as violations.

By an authority figure, thus necessitating them as not just fallacies under there own nature, but subject to the bandwagon and therefore the ad-hominum fallacy, considering all authorities and "groups" are subjective in nature. To attack an argument from an authority or group is to attack the authority or group themselves.

The law was not developed by Aristotle. Though he made them popular through his literature, they were and have been in use prior to him and since. Philosophers do not adhere to them because Aristotle has any authority over them, but because these laws have been determined to represent logic and have the appropriate significance and utility in all their applications. That is, they are valid to philosophy.

Aristotle did help develop the law, as all development is a progression within the law. New facets of the law did originate with him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_identity
http://importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_Identity.html
http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl201/modules/Philosophers/Aristotle/aristotle_laws_of_thought.html

This origination can be argued by developing the law of non-contradiction which helps define and give extension to the principle of identity:

https://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/topic/8486-aristotle-and-the-law-of-identity/

However this results in a historical argument as "equivocating" this "discovery" to "x" person and falls under equivocation as well considering while the law may originate with x person, the law as developed through "y" person observes a new origin of the law through a new definition.

The laws are defined in accords to progressive definition and exist through continuums.

The laws are adhered to because of majority opinion of specific groups of philosophers and logicians you are saying? This is bandwagon fallacy.

The three laws of logic, as are commonly known, are corollaries of each other:
1. The Law of Identity.
2. The Law of Non-contradiction.
3. The Law of Excluded Middle.

By corollary is meant, each law naturally inferences the other.

@Metaphysician Undercover is right -

P is not defined by not P. — Metaphysician Undercover

Actually the statement proves he is simultaneously wrong at the same time in a difference respect considering The law of identity is defined in accords with the law of non-contradiction as "collaries" of eachother and cannot be seperated. Because one law inferences another the law of identity, and hence "P", is defined by the law of Non-contradiction, hence -P. What you state is illogical and metaphysician undercover is wrong according to your own argument. You and him contradict eachother.


Common language can only be acceptable if it renders the right context. For example, "he is not good" implies he is bad/evil (or any other synonym which maintains the intended meaning). However, in no formal sense does 'not good' offer a definition of 'good'. Informally, as in common use, they're still extensively exclusive and explicit.

The "common" nature of a language is in itself a context and we are left with one context progressing to another context where one context may determine the next, but the next context (if viewed as progressive only) does not determine the prior. In these respects, language as context, is strictly directed movement.

The nature of context, is relative to a subjective group agreement, and what we understand of measurement is psychological (in these respects) where context is an means through which people measure reality and ihherently direct it and form it in such respects. The question occurs dually if "context" forms consciousness, as directed movement considering one context to another is a progressive continuum, and in these respects they are the same.

Context through Context is definition and is inseperable from consciousness as it is consciousness. The fundamental nature of context as directed movement, in accords to time, observes all consciousness existing from, through and as the basic "line" as directed movement.

If Pi is a relationship, and the line is a relationship of other lines as line, then Pi as a relationship, and the line as a relationship, observes Pi as a line.

I already defined in above what "quantum" means in the above. If you did not see it, then that means you are arguing against an argument you have not read and are forming your own subjective intepretation and cannot quote any mathematical authorities in this case.

Being and non-being, when alternating between eachother produce a continuum no different quantitatively to 1010011100001...

Actually a line is not just a line and a point is not just a point if one must reference the other in defining them. Can a line exist without being between points? This goes against your axioms. Can a point be observed without a line? This also goes against your mathematical axioms.

Your laws of logic are subject to the other laws of fallacies which extend from them and resort to a munchauseen trillema. Your laws are strictly a dogma of religious beliefs which contradict themselves, like most religious beliefs.

If I "differ" from the prevailing laws of logic, and these laws are determined by agreeing authority figures, then simply defining me as "illogical" based upon the opinions of other is not just bias and elitist, but effectively illogical as well considering it necessitates logic as a system of belief no different than other religions with religion being the foundations of many group conflicts and wars.

Are you an elitist? Do you believe you are better than the majority of people, or me, who do not see the world the same way you do?

Instead of future explanations, please direct me to the source of your information. Perhaps that would more readily resolve this conflict.

Okay: BrianW, Metaphysician Undercover

I am trying to find the root of the disagreement between you too.

Considering the prior claim:


The three laws of logic, as are commonly known, are corollaries of each other:
1. The Law of Identity.
2. The Law of Non-contradiction.
3. The Law of Excluded Middle.

By corollary is meant, each law naturally inferences the other.

@Metaphysician Undercover is right -

P is not defined by not P. — Metaphysician Undercover

Actually the statement proves he is simultaneously wrong at the same time in a difference respect considering The law of identity is defined in accords with the law of non-contradiction as "collaries" of eachother and cannot be seperated. Because one law inferences another the law of identity, and hence "P", is defined by the law of Non-contradiction, hence -P. What you state is illogical and metaphysician undercover is wrong according to your own argument. You and him contradict eachother.


You are both sticking up for a system that contradicts itself, as you contradict eachother.

If it is all subjective, then what are you trying to explain when you know your explanations to be subject to fallacies just like all laws, as you put it. Unlike your faulty explanations, the laws of logic are evident in their application to philosophy, mathematics, science and natural discourse. Their symmetry, harmony, reason is readily apparent in all the field of studies thus far. What validates yours?

To think by just exclaiming, "Subjective!" "Subjective!" that, it would make any of your arguments acceptable is very mistaken. The logic you call subjective is very authoritative because of the validity imposed on them by men of knowledge. You say it's a matter of agreement. Well, you should know that agreement means it is accepted as logical. Where is agreement of your premises? How logical does that make them?

If Pi is a relationship, and the line is a relationship of other lines as line, then Pi as a relationship, and the line as a relationship, observes Pi as a line. — eodnhoj7

Stop with this nonsense, already! If a black-skinned person is a human and a white-skinned person is a human, do you observe the black-skinned person as a white-skinned person because they're both humans? Neither is pi and the line.

@Metaphysician Undercover and I do not contradict each other. Your faulty interpretation is what misguides you.

Your logic is flawed. It is evident to anyone who reads your statements. It is one thing to hope to revolutionize logic by discovering some as yet unknown aspect but, you should be intelligent enough to know that the journey to the unknown begins with the known. Even Einstein did not disagree with Newtonian mechanics though he found them limited. My advice to you is:

Adhere to the prevailing laws of logic. Greater minds than yours have found them valid. However, our human perspectives are limited and there will always be the probability of furthering them. Already there are those who've discovered limitations to those laws of logic but they still understand their validity in the field of knowledge and they still depend on them. Don't be blinded by ambition or obsession. There is a saying (chinese or japanese), "fixation/obsession is furthest from understanding."

The law of Identity is written as "P is P" or "P equals P" with "is" and "equal" having multiple interpretations. — eodnhoj7

The law of identity states that a thing is the same as itself. It gives each thing its own identity, so P, as a particular thing, is the same as P, itself, that particular thing. This is quite clear, unambiguous, and not open to equivocation. Your examples of multiple interpretations, ambiguity, and equivocation simply reflects your misunderstanding of the law of identity.

So in regards to your statement "Equal" does not mean "is", you are performing sophistry which does not match up with the evidence with the evidence being the common perspectives of the community, which in itself leads to further fallacies. Evidence itself falls under certain fallacies in these respects. — eodnhoj7

The evidence indicates that you either completely misunderstand the law of identity, or that you state it in an ambiguous way in order to deceive. I am beginning to think that perhaps your intent is deception.

So The law of Non-Contradiction is not defined by the Law of Identity, and the Law of Identity is not defined by the Law of Non-Contradiction? The Law of Non-Contradiction does not exist through the Law of Identity and defines it? Each law does not define the other? — eodnhoj7

That's right, each of these fundamental laws has its own definition, what it means. One does not define the other. if that were the case, then it would be only one law. But there are three.

Pi is a relationship. It is not a line. — BrianW

Here we go again, good luck convincing eodnhoj7 of that.

"If it is all subjective, then what are you trying to explain when you know your explanations to be subject to fallacies just like all laws, as you put it."

The reflection of a subjective state, as void of any definition, is the canceling of a subjective state as undefined, into a objective state as defined.

The 0d point cancels itself out into a line when progressing to another 0d point. Void cancels itself out into being considering void cannot be observed on its own terms.

Subjectivity cancels itself out when given objective form, with the subjective state being multiple objective forms.

Unlike your faulty explanations, the laws of logic are evident in their application to philosophy, mathematics, science and natural discourse.

These laws, as the foundation for reasoning end in paradox as observed in wittgenstien (philosophy), mathematics (Godel), science (m-theory) and natural discourse (you and metaphysician undercover are not on the same page).

You say it's a matter of agreement. Well, you should know that agreement means it is accepted as logical.

Actually it is not just me, but Neitzche as well and other philsophers such as protagoras. If agreement is the foundation of logic, then logic contradicts itself in accords to the bandwagon fallacy and your religion makes no sense. But considering you and Metaphysician undercover do not agree, then by default you are not right relative to eachother.

The logic you call subjective is very authoritative because of the validity imposed on them by men of knowledge. Fallacy of authority. The authorities, by there own logic, want to be overridden. I am just reflecting there logic.

Where is agreement of your premises?

All logic is a continuum existing as directed movement through linear progression as definition conducive to relative seperation/connection, circularity conducive to maintainance of the axiom or relative dissolution of axioms into further axioms which are maintained, and the axiom as a point of origin for all further axioms while simultaneously existing as nothing in itself as means of inversion where one axiom changes to many axioms and these many axioms change to one axiom in themselves.

All arguments exist as is as structures and are there own proofs.

My premises sustain themselves while being open to self-maintianed expansion where any contradiction is merely a deficiency in structure solved by progression which is necessitated by the argument itself and maintained by a circularity. They are logical and are a higher order logic.

Where is the agreement in your premises? Do you have any premises? I don't know what they are yet.

Stop with this nonsense, already! If a black-skinned person is a human and a white-skinned person is a human, does the black-skinned person become a white-skinned person because they're both humans?

Are you arguing white and black people are not equal? Considering the black skinned person and white skinned person exist if and only if they continue through further propogation, as a person does not exist in and of themselves without other people, they the white and dark eventually mix over time.

However if you are arguing for the individual, and considering they come from a common lineage then they already have elements of the other in them. The color is determined by the ratio of pigments but the pigments of both are present in one degree or another. So in many respects yes, a person of one color can be a person of another color due to the inherent pigments within them. The ratios are mere directions used to seperate them, however the ratio cannot exist without the other part.

@Metaphysician Undercover and I do not contradict each other. Your faulty interpretation is what misguides you.

Actually Metaphysician said:
No, P is not defined by not P.

And you said:

The three laws of logic, as are commonly known, are corollaries of each other:
1. The Law of Identity.
2. The Law of Non-contradiction.
3. The Law of Excluded Middle.

By corollary is meant, each law naturally inferences the other.

And inference means

1. to conclude (a state of affairs, supposition, etc) by reasoning from evidence; deduce
2. (tr) to have or lead to as a necessary or logical consequence; indicate
3. (tr) to hint or imply

with all definition:

3. The state of being clearly outlined:

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/definition

or I can use another source. However an inference is an act of definition considering all conclusions act as outlines. What is concluded is outlined, what is outlined is concluded, with both existing as "definition".



Even Einstein did not disagree with Netwonian mechanics though he found them limited. My advice to you is

Yes and I am saying the same thing about the laws of logic as being contradictory. All contradictions are premised in truth statements which are deficient in nature, but are truth statements none the less. The are contradictory because of there inherent lack of structure. Which modern logic entails due to its continual atomism and deductivity.

All logic exists as a continuum with this continuum being defined by its directive nature. All logic must progress.

Greater minds than yours have found them valid. Fallacy of authority, and ad-hominum, and an insult to yourself for feeling less than anyone intellectually. You are not objective about your subjectivity, hence the contradiction. Subjectivity cancels itself out eventually.

However, our human perspectives are limited and there will always be the probability of furthering them. I am following this logic? Are you? If greater mind are limited, and other's must progress past them...does that mean they are always wrong as what they say is never complete?


I get it that you are afraid of thinking outside your comfort zone, and like to stay in a flimsy box, leave exploring the unknown elements of logic to greater men who are willing to risk losing sanity. You don't have the strength or fortitude for it.

I will make my premise clear, relative to the fallacies.

All fallacies are invertedly true, as there self negation leads to a necessity of authority, equivocation, hominum, circularity, etc. as continuums.

All fallacies as false observe a dual negative progression where they are used as a means of seperation.

Where I am arguing with you, is that your system cannot maintain this, hence that is why you are deficient in reasoning.

Don't be blinded by ambition or obsession. There is a saying (chinese or japanese), "fixation/obsession is furthest from understanding." What ambition or obsession if I am strictly observing my premises maintain themselves in the face of "great thinkers" whose continual progression necessitates ambition and obsession.

Your axioms cannot maintain themselves. I am arguing all axioms can maintain themselves but this cannot be limited to the premises of prior thinkers as there laws lead to a munchasseen trillema at minimum and are subject to there own contradictions.

The reflection of a subjective state, as void of any definition, is the canceling of a subjective state as undefined, into a objective state as defined. — eodnhoj7

Is this new information? How did you come by this premise?

If agreement is the foundation of logic, then logic contradicts itself in accords to the bandwagon fallacy and your religion makes no sense. — eodnhoj7

No. Agreement is not the foundation of logic. Agreement is the sign of validity or acceptance. Logic stands by its own right. Like I said, your problem is misinterpretation.

Yes and I am saying the same thing about the laws of logic as being contradictory. — eodnhoj7

What same thing? Limitation is not contradiction. Boy, you need a dictionary!

Fallacy of authority, and ad-hominum, and an insult to yourself for feeling less than anyone intellectually. You are not objective about your subjectivity, hence the contradiction. Subjectivity cancels itself out eventually. — eodnhoj7

You need to take time and develop perspective. I may be smart but not so arrogant not to acknowledge greater application of intelligence when I see it.

There is a difference between beyond comfort zone and being out right wrong. YOU ARE WRONG!

Your axioms cannot maintain themselves. I am arguing all axioms can maintain themselves... — eodnhoj7

Anything past that would already be contradictory.
This is what I'm talking about. There is a difference between having information and having knowledge. At the very least knowledge is information given context. You need to take time to develop that context (perspective). It is greatly wanting.

I would welcome any definitive statement from any of the philosophers you've mentioned which contradicts the laws of logic or which finds them contradictory. Be sure to include the exact reference point for me to confirm.

Where are your sources for all of this?

I mean the whole argument is about why I am wrong, according to you, without quoting any source other than laws of logic which have multiple interpretations with the various sources hence are subject to a multitude of fallacies.

What argument have you produced claiming you right without falling to your own fallacies?

If I present an argument building off of the axioms, for example Pi can exist both as a ratio and a line (length) you claim I am wrong because I am ignoring your axioms. However I am saying the axioms are right, but they are wrong in the respect they are deficient in any self-maintain self-referentiality that does not lead to a Munchausheen trillema of continual "regress" rather than "progress".

I should thank you for organizing all those quotes for me, it saved me a lot of time :).

Wow, for you to confirm? So you know more than everyone else? You are an authority of Greater Minds?

Provide me one source that is not circular and subject to equivocation, and I will provide you any source you wish for the above on any point you wish. You can pick anyone of them, but first provide me one source that is not subject to circularity and equivocation...just one.

I mean the whole argument is about why I am wrong, according to you, without quoting any source other than laws of logic which have multiple interpretations with the various sources hence are subject to a multitude of fallacies. — eodnhoj7

The laws of logic do not have multiple and varied connotations. Otherwise they would not be laws or principles. What they have is multiple applications. Don't confound the two. (This is an explanation. I've given such in all my rebuffs. Please check again.)

The three laws of logic, as are commonly known, are corollaries of each other:
1. The Law of Identity.
2. The Law of Non-contradiction.
3. The Law of Excluded Middle.

By corollary is meant, each law naturally inferences the other. — eodnhoj7

Here we go again, try to convince Brian of that.

There are multiple logics, hence multiple interpretation of the same axioms. Do you want a list of the multitude of logics?

Wow, for you to confirm? So you know more than everyone else? You are an authority of Greater Minds? — eodnhoj7

No. To keep you from attempting to pull wool over my eyes.

You want proof?

Everything we perceive is an identity, form, influence, condition, activity, character, etc. There is no formless, causeless, nothing, etc recorded in history. Where do yours come from?

Sources please.

There are multiple logics, hence multiple interpretation of the same axioms. Do you want a list of the multitude of logics? — eodnhoj7

Not multiple logics or laws of logic. I'm asking for multiple and distinctly varied interpretations of those logics or laws of logics. If you have these, show them.

What sources? Have you perceived formless, causeless, nothing?

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

Sources that state that:

"Everything we perceive is an identity, form, influence, condition, activity, character, etc. There is no formless, causeless, nothing, etc recorded in history."

Sources that state that:

"Everything we perceive is an identity, form, influence, condition, activity, character, etc. There is no formless, causeless, nothing, etc recorded in history." — eodnhoj7

First, every book that deals with perception.
Secondly, every description given falls under those limits.
Thirdly, the laws of logic - all of them which are currently known and acceptable within the fields of knowledge.

All books are acts of perception: Neitzche's Perspectivism and much of oriental thought.

All description, as a limit occurs through no limit: Anaximander on the apeiron and much of oriential thought.

The law of logic, if they must progress as you have stated, are not currently fully understood hence known. Eastern philosophers have different laws of logic.

All western logic is contradictory in terms of eastern logic. Which is correct?

All description, as a limit occurs through no limit: Anaximander on the apeiron — eodnhoj7

That's a concept. It is not something he proved, rather, hypothesized. Are you implying that's what you were doing?

Eastern philosophers have different laws of logic. — eodnhoj7

What laws?

All western logic is contradictory in terms of eastern logic. — eodnhoj7

Not true. Else, prove it.

All proof must be infinite, it it is to continue as an absolute truth statement, hence must exist as unlimited through this continuum.

Eastern philosophy allows for circularity, western logic does not.

All proof must be infinite, it it is to continue as an absolute truth statement, hence must exist as unlimited through this continuum.

Eastern philosophy allows for circularity, western logic does not. — eodnhoj7

Eastern and Western philosophies describe different circumstances. On the few points of intersection they have, they agree unequivocally.

All proof must be infinite, it it is to continue as an absolute truth statement, hence must exist as unlimited through this continuum. — eodnhoj7

Not true. Again, you're confounding phenomena with the laws which govern them. I can present a rabbit as proof of its existence but it won't exist forever and it hasn't been in existence since the beginning of time. However, the laws which govern manifestation of phenomena are eternal, infinite, etc.

So 1+1=2 will eventually be false?

Logic is the realisation of the laws which govern phenomena. Because they are derived from perception of phenomena, they leave little to faults. The few fallacies attributed to them are present within human perspectives not the laws in themselves. This is the point which you fail to see. There is nothing wrong with logic. What is wrong is the interpretation of it.

So 1+1=2 will eventually be false? — eodnhoj7

Isn't it based on a law which governs phenomena? Then you already have my answer.