You've identified even more ambiguity. These all higlight the significance of semantics when sharing information.

Whether they exist or not, dragons breathe fire.
— Relativist
A change of topic. From "Dragons breath fire", you can conclude that something breaths fire. You cannot conclude that there are dragons. — Banno

It would be correct to say:

"the sentence: 'dragons breath fire' is true whether or not dragons exist"

because:

-If dragons exist, then "dragon" refers to these existing animals.
-If dragons don't exist, then "dragon" refers to a fictional creature.

In the original sentence, "Whether they exist or not, dragons breathe fire", there's just one referrent - not 2.

In D&D, the only dragons that breathe fire are the red dragons. Other dragons breathe ice, or lightning, or acid, etc.

At best you might say that some dragons breath fire.

-If dragons don't exist, then "dragon" refers to a fictional creature. — Relativist

Then dragons exist and are fictional creatures.

∃(x)(x is a dragon and x is fictional)
or
∃(x)(x is a dragon ⊃ x is fictional)

At best you might say that some dragons breath fire. — Banno

This would imply that the set of all dragons includes all the real dragons and all the fictional creatures so-named. Some members of the set are said to breathe fire. We can't really say that "some dragons breathe fire" because fictional things don't actually breathe.

.

Then the sentence "dragons breathe fire" is false, because fictional creatures don't actually breathe at all. — Relativist

Why would you think fictional creatures do not breath? Or are you now saying that there are two levels of ontology, stuff that exists and stuff that is actual?

∃(x)(x is a dragon & x is fictional & x breaths fire)

Looks fine to me.

Why would you think fictional creatures do not breath? — Banno

Breathing is a real world activity by real world creatures. A fiction can't do this.

are you now saying that there are two levels of ontology, stuff that exists and stuff that is actual?

IMO there's one ontology. Dragons are either real-world creatures, or they are concepts residing in minds.

Breathing is a real world activity by real world creatures. A fiction can't do this. — Relativist

And yet it is true that dragons breath fire.

Ergo, fictional creatures can breath.

IMO there's one ontology. Dragons are either real-world creatures, or they are concepts residing in minds. — Relativist

Take a closer look at what is going on. We can set "exists' as a quantifier, ∃(x)f(x), which just says that something has the property f. Then we can happily talk about dragons breathing and still say that they are fictional.

Fictional creatures are found in fiction, in the real world. Sure, you will not meet one in the street.

On this account dragons can breath fire. On your account, it is false that dragons breath fire.

And yet it is true that dragons breath fire.

Ergo, fictional creatures can breath. — Banno

The fiction of dragons includes "breathing fire". But fictions still can't engage in the real world activity.

Do you understand my objection to the original statement:

Whether they exist or not, dragons breathe fire.

I'm not saying you can't make sense of it. But strictly speaking, when a noun appears once in a sentence, it has a single referent. Fictional creature and actual creature are 2 different referents.

The fiction of dragons includes "breathing fire". But fictions still can't engage in the real world activity. — Relativist

Sure.

Do you understand my objection to the original statement:
Whether they exist or not, dragons breathe fire. — Relativist

You can't say of something that does not exist, that it breaths fire. Just showing you one way to make sense of that.

Well, use "Hesperus" and "Phosphorus" instead. — Banno

What difference would they make for the statement?

You've identified even more ambiguity. These all higlight the significance of semantics when sharing information. — Relativist

"The morning star is the morning star." sound like a tautology. But it is not a tautology, when the subject means the planet Venus, and the predicate means the star Sun. Hence would it be the meaning of the words dictates on the sentence being tautology or not?

For another example, "Today is today." It sounds like tautology, but the subject means the name of a newspaper, and the predicate refers to a day in a month. Then they are not tautology.

I agree.

This:

Hence, Phosphorus could be the sun? What would Hesperus be? Under this clarification is "Phosphorus is Hesperus." still a tautology? Or is it downright false? — Corvus

Hence, Phosphorus could be the sun? What would Hesperus be? — Corvus

Is Phosphorus also the star or planet?

what makes it a contradiction?

That was my question.

The way you phrased it, "isn't it a tautalogy but also a contradiction", makes it sound like you think it's a contradiction. Do you not?

I don't. I don't see what's contradictory about it.

I have a name, and I also go by a nickname. If someone said "FJ is the same person as Flannel Jesus", there's no contradiction in that. Why would the evening / morning star be different? I don't see the contradiction.

It's also not necessarily a tautology, not to a person that doesn't know it's the same object they're calling both of those things.

The reason that the Morning star is morning star is because it is only visible in the mornings.
But the reason that the evening star is the evening star is because it is only visible in the evenings.

It follows,
"Morning star is evening star" is the same as "Morning star is not evening star."

Saying "Morning star is evening star" has the same meaning as
"Morning star is evening star and Morning star is not evening star."
A ^ ~A is a contradiction.

Sorry, just catching up with this. Re Quine: That suggests a possible difference between the structure of definitional and logical truths. For as we know, Quine's issue about synonymy doesn't apply to logical truths. People tend to forget this and think that Quine denied any analyticity at all, but he explicitly makes this distinction.

It's also not necessarily a tautology, not to a person that doesn't know it's the same object they're calling both of those things. — flannel jesus

"The morning star is the evening star." is also a tautology. The morning star and evening star both refer to Venus. Hence it has the same meaning as "The morning star is the morning star.", which is a tautology.

They aren't all simultaneously true. "The reason that the Morning star is morning star is because it is only visible in the mornings. But the reason that the evening star is the evening star is because it is only visible in the evenings." This clearly isn't true if both of those words refer to Venus, and Venus is visible in both mornings and evenings. You've only created a paradox by compiling a bunch of false statements.

It's easy to make a paradox out of false statements. Corvus is a human and he's not a human. If I allow myself false statements, then voila, I can produce a paradox at will.

That sounds like a strawman. You are suddenly talking about Venus, when the point of the replies was about the morning star and evening star. They may refer to Venus, but the reason they are called the morning star and evening star is the time when it is visible.

You are making up either a strawman, or you don't seem to know the point of the argument here.

That sounds like a strawman. You are suddenly talking about Venus, when the point of the replies was about the morning star and evening star. — Corvus

How is it a strawman? You literally said "The morning star and evening star both refer to Venus."

How is it a strawman? You literally said "The morning star and evening star both refer to Venus." — flannel jesus

I only highlighted it for you to let you know about the strawman. Venus was not the main point in the argument. It is mentioned to explain why the statement is a tautology i.e. they all point to the same reference viz. Venus.

Because the argument offered an explanation, calling it "making up paradoxes" was strawman. The argument didn't have to mention it, but it was just trying to be more informative.

I have no idea what you're talking about

A tautology is a logical statement that does not contradict the axiomatic set within which that statement is made.

Axiom 1: All hyenas play chess.
Axiom 2: Joe lives with two hyenas.
Statement: Joe lives with two chess players.

The statement is a tautology regardless of whether the axioms are true.

If you read the posts carefully, it is clear why it is a contradiction and why it is a tautology. All the steps of the inferences are based on the rules of logical proof.

But blatantly asserting they are a bunch of paradoxes, doesn't make sense.

If you read the posts carefully, it is clear why it is a contradiction and why it is a tautology — Corvus

I don't think anything yous aid is clear at this point.

I don't think anything yous aid is clear at this point. — flannel jesus

If you read about the rules of logical proof, then maybe you would understand them? It is elementary basic rules viz. rules of elimination, assumption and addition in the textbooks. I don't think explanations on the details of the rules are the scope of the OP.