. All axioms are points of origin; hence all axioms as progressive linear definition and circularity are points of origins. The point of origin progresses to another point of origin through point 2 and cycles back to itself through point 3 with this linear progression and circularity originating from themselves, through eachother and point 1.

Point 1 is original and exists through points 2 and 3 as points 2 and 3. — eodnhoj7


That's not a true circularity. To be a true circle, there can be no difference between point 1,2, and 3, in relation to "point of origin". To be truly circular, any of the points must be equal as potentially the point of origin, such that there cannot be an actual point of origin. So to refer to any point of a circle as a point of origin is to utter a falsity.

Actually 2+2=4 and 4 =2+2 is a circular statement.
And the axioms existing through eachother is circular "Point 1 exists through Points 2 and 3 as points 2 an 3" while maintaining a progressive expansion as point 1 progresses to point 2 and point 2 to point 3.


Circularity results when the premises contain the conclusion.
https://www.bing.com/search?q=fallacy+of+circularity&qs=n&form=QBLH&sp=-1&ghc=1&pq=fallacy+of+circularity&sc=1-22&sk=&cvid=7C6F8626588F400D9EB2A3376972F6D1

Hence even by this standard the principle of Identity as P=P is circular and the origin of all identity is premised on a circularity through equivocation in which equivocation acts as a connective median defining all things. But you say it is not...

ROFL!!!!!!!

Wow no wonder the modern world is dying.






Fallacy of Authority if referencing the nature of the circle as pointless. Pythagoras and the Hindus with the Monad and Bindu (respectively) observed the point as the origin of the circle. — eodnhoj7


You seem to misunderstand. My argument is not that the circle is pointless, but that there cannot be a point of origin.

The circle cannot do this would stemming from the point, with the point as origin simultaneously being beyond movement in one respect and void in another. — eodnhoj7


Even this can be understood to be incorrect. There is no reason why the centre point would be the point of origin of the circle. In fact, the irrational nature of pi indicates that there cannot be an actual centre point to the circle. Therefore the centre point cannot be the origin of the circle. This argument is unsound, based in the false premise that a circle actually has a centre point. The irrational nature of pi indicates otherwise.

Wow...you are actually a liar...the "Point has no Center point?"


https://www.bing.com/search?q=center+point+of+circle&qs=n&form=QBRE&sp=-1&pq=center+point+of+circle&sc=4-22&sk=&cvid=80EB8E77468B4CF487A3349EDBE05BBC

Pi is dependent upon a diameter and the diameter is dependent upon the radius.

I am half tempted to report this as spam, but considering you are actually providing an explanation (however faulty and contradictory) it is still an argument and all arguments have to be respected regardless of there depth...this is philosophy.




3. The standard intepretation of the circle as pure movement, observes the circle originating from nothing (the center point). The circle cannot exist without an origin and this origin is the point through Pi. — eodnhoj7


The irrational nature of pi indicates that we'd have to do an infinite reduction to determine the actual centre point of the circle. This is impossible therefore there is no actual centre point. Since there is no actual centre point, it is impossible that the centre point is the origin of the circle.

Address in premise, all points of origin require a progression and all progressions exist as points of origins.

The point of origin, linear progression and circular maintainance are three symmetrical phenomena that exist as eachother through eachother.






All points of origin are nothing in themselves, hence observed through the other laws progressively and circularly with laws 2 and 3 being points of origin in themselves with law 2 progressing to 1 and 3 and law three cycling through 1 and 2. — eodnhoj7


Again, I'll reassert what I already told you. If the axioms of logic are related as circular, it is impossible that any one of them could be understood as a point of origin. This is your contradictory argument.

See above with principle of identity.



If we can take the law of identity, or any one of the other laws, as a point of origin, then the laws of logic are not circular. If the laws of logic are circular then we cannot take any one of them as a point of origin. Therefore your argument employs contradictory premises, that the axioms may be taken as points of origin, and that they are circular.

Going back to the premise of the thread, if material is the medial, what is a medial?

What makes you think saying that "I am mistaken" will suddenly make you right even though your arguments are obviously

ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I mean let's face the obvious truth, you criticize me by saying I am wrong and barely provide an argument except quoting some source (barely, but sometimes) then when I say this is subject to a fallacy of authority or bandwagon you ignore it.

These laws are everywhere, hence all people observe them whether they see the laws directly or not.

The copy and paste is strictly a reference that while you believe you are observing a problem from a seperate angle, the angle has already been addressed.

Misquoting the laws does not make you correct.

These laws are not limited to assumption as these laws are the origins for all movement and observe all fallacies as simultaneous truth statements: hence the laws are authoritative (fallacy of authority), subjective (ad-hominum), progressive (slippery slope), equivocative (fallacy of equivocation)...etc.

In simpler terms all assumptions are points of origin and progress to further axioms while cycling back to the assumption to prove whether the assumption is correct or not.

— eodnhoj7

These laws are observed in all logic but not limited to logic. These laws are observed, from the premise axiom of "logic", in Godel's incompleteness theorems, in "Science" in the zeno quantum effect, religion with "sphere worship/all is one/monadology, psychology with the cycling of emotional states or the projection of one emotional state on to another, the laws of nature, etc.

These laws are universal while existing through particulates as universals. They are synthetic, or joining, in these respects.

. All axioms are points of origin; hence all axioms as progressive linear definition and circularity are points of origins. The point of origin progresses to another point of origin through point 2 and cycles back to itself through point 3 with this linear progression and circularity originating from themselves, through eachother and point 1.

Point 1 is original and exists through points 2 and 3 as points 2 and 3.

As original Points 1,2,3 are extension of eachother as one axiom, while simultaneously being nothing in themselves as points of origin that invert to further axioms respectively; hence originate as 1 and 3 through 1 and 3 as 1 and 3 laws — eodnhoj7


I can't agree with this, as I see a fundamental error. If you are talking about circularity then you cannot refer to a "point of origin". This is fundamental to circularity, no point may be a point of origin. That is why Aristotle designated a perfect circular motion as an eternal activity, it cannot have a beginning or ending.

Fallacy of Authority if referencing the nature of the circle as pointless. Pythagoras and the Hindus with the Monad and Bindu (respectively) observed the point as the origin of the circle.

1. The circle is a point relative to another larger or smaller circle.

2. The circle as perpetual movement is still relative to other circles as the circle but move clock wise, counterclockwise, expand, contract, etc. in order to move considering all direction and movement occurs relative to other direction and movement. I cannot have a line projecting in one direction without some line projecting in a different direction as there is nowhere to progress to.

Hence the circle moving in all directions at one, through itself as itself, results in the point as an origin where the point is conducive to pure movement in all directions. The circle cannot do this would stemming from the point, with the point as origin simultaneously being beyond movement in one respect and void in another.

3. The standard intepretation of the circle as pure movement, observes the circle originating from nothing (the center point). The circle cannot exist without an origin and this origin is the point through Pi.



Secondarily these laws are progressive. The point of origin progresses to definition and definition to circularity as maintainance with these laws as point of origins allowing progression to further laws.









If I look at the sentence:

"The dog ate the cat." These words are inhernent axioms as points of origin in themselves and effectively exist as point space.

Using "(x)∙" as a symbol for point space, which as an axiom is in itself a point of reference to the observer denoting that these laws are not just limited to language but language as symbolism is not just limited to the written word but thoughts within the observer, the sentence can be observed geometrically as:

(The)∙ (dog)∙ (ate)∙ (the)∙ (cat)∙



This sentence in itself is an axiom as a point of origin and can be observed as:

((The)∙ (dog)∙ (ate)∙ (the)∙ (cat)∙)∙



While the same applies to the letters which form the sentence:

(((T)∙(h)∙(e)∙)∙ ((d)∙(o)∙(g)∙)∙ ((a)∙(t)∙(e)∙)∙ ((t)∙(h)∙(e)∙)∙ ((c)∙(a)∙(t)∙)∙)∙


And The paragraphs, pages, etc. as well (this will not be observed for brevity). — eodnhoj7


So, what you are doing here, is assuming that an axiom is a "point of origin", as a premise, then building upon this an argument which premises that a point of origin as impossible (circularity). Really, all you have is two contradicting premises, the premise of a point of origin and the premise of circularity.

Not really. All points of origin are nothing in themselves, hence observed through the other laws progressively and circularly with laws 2 and 3 being points of origin in themselves with law 2 progressing to 1 and 3 and law three cycling through 1 and 2.

The laws exist through progression into further axioms, with these axioms following the same form and function.

It is like saying that the axioms of math cannot be proven except through the structure which exists from them (arithmetic), but these results in a circularity and is subject to contradiction under standard laws. However these laws observe that progression to circularity are in themselves the foundation of laws, hence the law is self-referencing while open to expansion.

Ignoring the fact that your logic is subject to the fallacies it depends upon to survive only shows how your logic (and that of the classical foundation) is strictly a belief system. These laws allow for belief as a structure, with this belief existing if and only if there is structure with this structure existing through continuuity. The laws progressively cycle through themselves while observe all other laws unable to cycle through there foundations as contradictory on there own terms, hence approximates of these three laws in the respect they cannot be observed except through these three laws.


And all axioms are not "points of origin"? Euclidian axioms are not points of origin for euclidian geometry? Or standard arithmetic axioms are not points of origin for algebra? The constitution is not a point of origin for the U.S. body of law? Attraction is not a point of origin for a man and woman choosing to date eachother?


Contradiction is a deficiency in structure. While these laws are not contradictory, as they maintain themselves and exist through themselves and exist through all further axioms, these laws due to their progressive nature allow for contradiction within the premise as they must continually expand.

This point must be explained as allowing for contradiction is not contradiction.


The self-referencing as contradiction through contradiction, or that contradiction is allowed, maintains the laws as non contradictory in these respects. They are contradictory only in the respect they continually progressing through further laws, but because these 3 laws are always maintaining themselves through a progressive circularity the laws do not contradict themselves.

Rather the laws stemming from these laws contradict themselves as they deficient on their own terms but exist as extensions of these laws.

It allows contradiction by allowing further laws to exist on there own accords even though these laws cannot maintain themselves without being extensions of this laws.

It does not mean that the laws change but that, they associate such that the phenomena expresses the conditions we refer to as cyclic. — BrianW

The cycling of axioms, whether abstract, empirical or both, is addressed in the above laws.





Do not mistake the nature of laws with the nature of phenomena. Do not attribute the characteristics of phenomena to those of laws. — BrianW

If the laws are not connected to the phenomena then are they really laws? If the definition is not connected are the laws really true?





Phenomena are always changing but the laws are ever constant. — BrianW

The laws progress to further laws with these laws cycling back to other laws (example can be the definition of mass, volume and density as laws in physics).

This is addressed in the above laws. These laws are constants, and extend through all further laws with these laws as extensions of these one laws merely being approximates of it.

So much for saying it is not relevant to proceed, and then proceeding.

I think I will proceed with examples on the geometric nature of language through the Laws (considering this argument exists through language and much of what we understand of phenomena have a symbolic nature in the respect they mediate other phenomena):





The nature of language is determined not just by its self-evident under axioms, but how these axioms exist in accords to language as an "axiom" in itself. While these laws are not limited strictly to language, they exist through them, and hence are laws of language and logic as well.


1. All axioms are points of origin; hence all axioms as progressive linear definition and circularity are points of origins. The point of origin progresses to another point of origin through point 2 and cycles back to itself through point 3 with this linear progression and circularity originating from themselves, through eachother and point 1.

Point 1 is original and exists through points 2 and 3 as points 2 and 3.

As original Points 1,2,3 are extension of eachother as one axiom, while simultaneously being nothing in themselves as points of origin that invert to further axioms respectively; hence originate as 1 and 3 through 1 and 3 as 1 and 3 laws



If I look at the sentence:

"The dog ate the cat." These words are inhernent axioms as points of origin in themselves and effectively exist as point space.

Using "(x)∙" as a symbol for point space, which as an axiom is in itself a point of reference to the observer denoting that these laws are not just limited to language but language as symbolism is not just limited to the written word but thoughts within the observer, the sentence can be observed geometrically as:

(The)∙ (dog)∙ (ate)∙ (the)∙ (cat)∙



This sentence in itself is an axiom as a point of origin and can be observed as:

((The)∙ (dog)∙ (ate)∙ (the)∙ (cat)∙)∙



While the same applies to the letters which form the sentence:

(((T)∙(h)∙(e)∙)∙ ((d)∙(o)∙(g)∙)∙ ((a)∙(t)∙(e)∙)∙ ((t)∙(h)∙(e)∙)∙ ((c)∙(a)∙(t)∙)∙)∙


And The paragraphs, pages, etc. as well (this will not be observed for brevity).












2. All axioms are progressive linear definition; point 1 and 3 progress to point 2 as respective points of origin observed in point 1 while this linear progression from one to another through alternation and exists as circulation between points 1 and 3 to point 2 and point 2 progressing to points 1 and 3.

Point 2 is definitive and defines points 1 and 3 with points 1 and 3 defining point 2.

As definitive Points 1,2,3 progress from one to another and are inherently seperate. As seperating one from another they are connected under a common function of "seperation"; hence are defined as 1 and 3 through 1 and 3 as 1 and 3 laws.



If I look at the sentence:

"The dog ate the cat." These words are inhernent axioms as lines of definition in themselves and effectively exist as linear space.

Using "(x)∙→" as a symbol for projective linear space and "(x)∙⇄" as a symbol for connective linear space,


which as an axiom is directed to and from the observer, while connected with the observe from a difference reference point, denoting that these laws are not just limited to language but language as symbolism is not just limited to the written word but thoughts within the observer, the sentence can be observed geometrically as:

(The)∙→ (dog)∙→ (ate)∙→ (the)∙→ (cat)∙

(The)∙⇄ (dog)∙⇄ (ate)∙⇄ (the)∙⇄ (cat)∙



This sentence in itself is an axiom as a projective/connection and can be observed as:

((The)∙→ (dog)∙→ (ate)∙→ (the)∙→ (cat)∙→)∙→ (Z)∙
((The)∙⇄ (dog)∙⇄ (ate)∙⇄ (the)∙⇄ (cat)∙⇄)∙⇄ (Z)∙

(Z)∙ = next sentence.



While the same applies to the letters which form the sentence:

(((T)∙→(h)∙→(e)∙)∙→ ((d)∙→(o)∙→(g)∙)∙→ ((a)∙→(t)∙→(e)∙)∙→ ((t)∙→(h)∙→(e)∙)∙→ ((c)∙→(a)∙→(t)∙→)∙)∙→ (Z)∙

(((T)∙⇄(h)∙⇄(e)∙)∙⇄ ((d)∙⇄(o)∙⇄(g)∙)∙→ ((a)∙⇄(t)∙⇄(e)∙)∙⇄ ((t)∙⇄(h)∙⇄(e)∙)∙⇄ ((c)∙⇄(a)∙⇄(t)∙⇄)∙)∙⇄ (Z)∙

And The paragraphs, pages, etc. as well (this will not be observed for brevity).








3. All axioms are maintain through a circularity, as linear alternation through point 2, and points of origin as point 1, with point 1 and 2 circulating through each other as point three while circulating through themselves as each other. Point 3 maintains itself as circular and maintains points 1 and 2 as circular while points 1,2 and 3 circulating through eachother maintain eachother.

Point 3 is circular and exists through 1 and 2 as 1 and 2.

As circular Points 1,2,3 are maintained through eachother as eachother as one axiom, while simultaneously dissolving into further axioms as eachother; hence they circulate as 1 and 3 through 1 and 3 as 1 and 3 laws.



Considering the sentence, is dependent upon the projective nature in which it is written and read, the nature of the circularity in sentences observes certain inherent characteristics:


It observes the maintenance, or inseparability of certain axioms, where descriptors cycle with the quality being described:

Example:

The brown dog ate the yellow cat.
((The)∙→ ((brown)∙ ⟲ (dog)∙)∙→ (ate)∙→ (the)∙→ ((yellow)∙ ⟲(cat)∙)∙)∙→ (Z)∙



These order of these descriptors changes relative to language as the descriptor may be equally involved in form the quality, and the quality may be equally observed as forming the descriptor. For example in English "Good Man" may be observed in Hebrew as "Man Good".

It also observes that the sentence does not necessarily have to be observed in the same order to have the same meaning.





Observing each progression of one axiom to another, other this circularity in a different manner where a sentence can be arranged in many different ways and yet mean the same thing.

The brown dog ate the yellow cat.

(((The)∙→((Brown)∙⟲(Dog)∙)∙)∙→(Ate)∙⟲ (The)∙→((Yellow)∙⟲(Cat)∙)∙)∙⟲)∙→ (Z)∙

But the equation is equivalent to P and P=2 2 conisidering P=P is premised in an undefined equivocation.

You can define "=" if you want, but all it will lead to is further frameworks outside the law of identity defining it, as well as multiple meanings to "=".

language is a set of axioms, as axioms they exist through these laws.

But this is the fallacy of circularity.

2+2 = P

And

4 = p

Shows that not only does P have multiple values but is dependent upon functions as well.

P can equal many things and these many definitions means the principle of identity is a law of equivocation which runs counter to the fallacy of equiovcation.

Why Red herring by using an ad hominem?

ROFL...this forum is hilarious.

You already admitted to being confused when pushing those videos.

So a particle wave = particle wave (as you describe above) is the premise having the same answer as the conclusion? According to classical logic, this is circular reasoning.


ROFL!!!!!

you are arguing equals is is and equals equals is....Rofl!!!!!!!

I mean that is fine and all, but not under classical logic.

You just used the law to ask that question as not only the question void on its own nature unless it progresses to another answer or question but even the axioms which compose it progress from one to another.

So "=" shows equivalence but it is not equal to it? The principle of identity is about = or "is" not

P shows P.

For such a sub par argument you are the one who left and came back...so what you are saying is that you do not feel you have self respect?

Google recursion theory, or type theory...this is extensions of that, but not the same.

And what is a continuum? What are you going to do but refer from one definition to the next to the next until you "feel" satisfied when objectively the definitions just continue. And while they are continuing they just circle back to eachother as progressive loops as one giant loop.

If you don't believe me, look up any defintion in a dictionary and you will find a progressive circularity and Linearism simultaneously.

I gave proof that not only zenos paradoxes are applied in science through the quantum zero effect, but even math and logic deals with recursion theory, type theory, and the directional nature of logic is observed in intuitionist logic.

So "equals" = "is"? Really?

ROFL!!!!!!

You still never defined what "=" means in the law without referencing outside laws as necessary...but mostly you never defined it.

Proof can never be finite because it would need a further proof to define it. It can only be complete if it is self refererencing.

so a particle is not anything else, but it can be described as a wave?

So P can mean multiple things?

If a particle can only equal a particle, but the particle can also equal a wave, then we are stuck with a continuum of defintion.


Here let me defined the particle wave conundrum for you under the law of identity:

Particle (which is a particle wave(which is a particle(which is a particle wave(...) = The other side.

So you are left with a continuum or circularity where a particle is a particle wave and a particle wave is a particle.

See how with the law of Identity you are still left with a continuum?

And you are still stuck with the prime traid?

Even the argument itself is continuing.....


ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Actually you just followed the laws I am arguing, the principle of identity has to progress to further axioms to be understood.

I honestly think you have no clue about what you are talking about. You are just pushing your subjective thoughts, which is fine under the logic system I am arguing, but not for the classical laws.

You are just frustrated because you are not just confused, but feel threatened...for whatever reason I don't know or care.

So the particle wave is separate from all other phenomena and can exist on its own terms?

According to the principle of identity of I ask you what a particle wave is, then you are left with saying particle wave and the argument is subject to the fallacy of circularity according to classical logic.

You just had to progress in definition to explain P=P, hence P=P is not axiomatic on its own terms.

Word salad, what does "=" mean in "particle wave = particle wave"? It is not defined.

Nothing exists without movement, the circular and linear movement of all phenomenon allow the phenomena to exist. Can a particle exist if it does not project from position A to position B?

No you haven't. Apply the law of identity to a particle wave.

Now show me how yours are empirical, because generally speaking you haven't really given anything but a word salad.

Now the question, cycling back to the origin of the thread, is how does matter exist in accords with the classical laws of logic.

Real simple, first of all the laws govern all things and can be observed any where and always.

First, and I will repeat this point again, the structure of the argument originates from one axiom, which on its own is formless, this progresses to another axiom and set of axioms which in turn cycles back to he premise axioms.

You talk about the laws of identity, you progressively define it, and in turn cycle back to the law of identity and address it from a separate angle.




In regards to practicality the list below, with the list itself following these laws as a a continuum.

Cycles as maintaining phenomena.

Examples:

All natural cycles: reproduction, solar events, seasons, etc.
Mechanics (alternator, osiclators, gears)
Circulatory system, nervous system, eating, sleeping.
Sports (balls, pucks, rotary movements in swing martial arts, etc.)
Thoughts, feelings, emotions.

Etc. Because the list goes on.


All phenomena as existing through time as a continual form of progressing past origins and changing:

Examples:

An orange progressing through time progresses past previous states (green) to others (orange) to others (decay) to others (atoms) to others (dirt) to others (plant absorbing nutrient in dirt) to others...etc.



Each state of defintion, is in it itself a progression and acts as definition:

Orange as Ripe is composed of cells replicating to further cells with prior cells dying.

A person progressing to another person by the act of reproduction with each person progressive from one state of being youth (and all the physical, mental and emotional aspects of it) to middle age to old age, with the reproduction of people's as generation progressing to further generation being composed of further progressions of art, culture, technology, science, philosophy, etc.

The progression is composed of further progressions.


All axioms as point of origin.

All of the above examples observe each phenomena as not just a point of origin in itself for further phenomena, hence effectively nothing in itself, but each phenomena as a cause in the respect it exists as a perpetual structure existing through further structures as an ever present origin.




Logic exists through and as these rules and cannot be separated from them, for the seperative and connective nature of these laws is these rules.


Do you want me to continue? Because if so I am strictly just going to extend this post so you will have to check back on it.

That statement is one axiom progressing to another as a defintion of axioms, with that definition being an axiom in itself.

Law 2.

Word salad for one reason: You keep saying "definition" and I define it but you do not.

I argue it as progressive seperation...in which you are following.

And progressive connection...in which you are doing.

Your argument exists through the laws, and you argument is void on its own terms according to these laws as all axioms are void on their own terms.

You reasoning is subject to these laws.

You cannot argue against the law without proving the law by making it progress further.

My point is the identity of a person remains the same.

Actually you said it changes, hence identity is merely a boundary of change.



this definition of the point line and circle occurs through the nature of the point, line and circle with the nature of the point, line and circle being further defined by the relations of the point line and circle. — eodnhoj7


Which definition is that which occurs through the line, point and circle. State that definition.





1. All axioms are points of origin; hence all axioms as progressive linear definition and circularity are points of origins. The point of origin progresses to another point of origin through point 2 and cycles back to itself through point 3 with this linear progression and circularity originating from themselves, through eachother and point 1.

Point 1 is original and exists through points 2 and 3 as points 2 and 3.

As original Points 1,2,3 are extension of eachother as one axiom, while simultaneously being nothing in themselves as points of origin that invert to further axioms respectively; hence originate as 1 and 3 through 1 and 3 as 1 and 3 laws

2. All axioms are progressive linear definition; point 1 and 3 progress to point 2 as respective points of origin observed in point 1 while this linear progression from one to another through alternation and exists as circulation between points 1 and 3 to point 2 and point 2 progressing to points 1 and 3.

Point 2 is definitive and defines points 1 and 3 with points 1 and 3 defining point 2.

As definitive Points 1,2,3 progress from one to another and are inherently seperate. As seperating one from another they are connected under a common function of "seperation"; hence are defined as 1 and 3 through 1 and 3 as 1 and 3 laws.

3. All axioms are maintain through a circularity, as linear alternation through point 2, and points of origin as point 1, with point 1 and 2 circulating through each other as point three while circulating through themselves as each other. Point 3 maintains itself as circular and maintains points 1 and 2 as circular while points 1,2 and 3 circulating through eachother maintain eachother.

Point 3 is circular and exists through 1 and 2 as 1 and 2.

As circular Points 1,2,3 are maintained through eachother as eachother as one axiom, while simultaneously dissolving into further axioms as eachother; hence they circulate as 1 and 3 through 1 and 3 as 1 and 3 laws.





It is a circular expansion — eodnhoj7


What is circular expansion. Define and explain it.

Define and Explain Definition without going into a continuum.


1) A → (A,A)B

2) (A ← (A,A)B)C ∵ B ∋ A

3) ((A,A)B → (A,A)B)D ∵ B ∋ A

1(1,2,3)) ((A,A)B → (A,A,A)C → (A,A,A,A)D)I ∵ (B,C,D) ∋ A


4) A ↔ ((A → A)= (A ⇆ A) = (A⟲) = (A = ⟲))

5) ((A → A)= (A ⇆ A) = (A⟲) = (A = ⟲)) = ⟨A⟲|(A → A)⟩ ∴ A ↔ ⟨"⟲"|"→")⟩

6) A = 1 and 0 where A,1,0 are point space as the foundations of quantity and quality.

1 = 0

where this equation observes point space as both 0 dimensional and 1 dimensional in theory.



Flux and form are inseperable, hence flux and form replicate further flux and form, where the repitition of flux and form is flux and form. All statements exist as truth statements if they are self referentiality, with this self referentiality being open to progress.

If a cause is directed to effect, an effect is a cause, the cause is directed through itself as an effect.

"A" cannot exist without "->" and "->" cannot exist without "A". Hence while A directed to A always results in A as maintained as a self referential axiom it results in B as the observation of this self referentiality.

B in turn is open to further progress of self referentiality, B directed to B, because it it exists through A with A being self referential. This results in D where D is a form and function of B self refencing through A as self referencing.

A directed to B observes A directed to itself where the repitition of A results in B. B is the form and function of A.

Simultaneously, as A self referencing, B as A is directed back to A as C. C is A self referencing through B with B being an obersation of A self referencing.

Self referencing, intradimensionally, or "reflection" (all synonyms) is form and function.

So the foundation axiom is form/function resulting in further form/function with form/function being the proof and answer as a symmetrical structure.

All proof as form/functions are approximations of a form function. In short terms all answers as approximations are random because the premise is a random. However while the form/function is random, it's corresponding form/function is not. So while all proofs are effectively random, they are ordered, structured, and rational through a self referentiality.

The progressive nature that this form/function resulting in form function takes into account the randomness as this approximation, inherent within all answers

For example 1+2=3 is an approximation of 3 considering 3 = (infinite form/functions).

Example:

3 = 4-1,5-2,6-3...

3= 3-1+1-1, 5-2+2-2, 6-3+3-3...

With these progressing ad infinitum and not including further arithmetic functions.

So 1+2, while true because as a form function (+1 and +2 directed to eachother) its exists through the form function of +3, but is random considering 1+2 is an approximation of the infinite form functions that exist through the form function of 3.

So all form/functions are simultaneously random as approximations of a great form function, while inherently true as extensions of the form function through their nature.


The mirror theory two thread, in the math logic section, observes this from a quantitiatve angle. The number line is actually a function as well.

Because of this premise of form/function as true, and for everything I understand of logic separates form and function, a new but very simple language had to be created. The language is justified through itself as strictly directed movement where the line/circular directions of the numbers are axioms. Number is movement and direction as a form/function.
Top





linear and circular reasoning — eodnhoj7


Define and explain them.

Shown above

where this linear and circular reasoning and all axioms as "points of origin" in turn not just justify the laws, but observes all logic is subject to both "form" and "function" in regarde to its nature as axiomatic. — eodnhoj7



How are they points of origin. Origin of what? How do they observe logic as subject to form and function?

You argument as an axiom progresses to further of your arguments as axioms. One argument is a point of origin for another.

I am using the Pythagorean Monad, Hindu Bindhu, Lieniz's Monads, Plotinus's Monad/One — eodnhoj7


Where are they in your explanations? How are they associated with your explanations and phenomena in reality?

They are the explanation. They exist through there definition of the monad, hence the monad defines there work.

They all exist as extensions of eachother, according to both there reasoning, and the laws themselves. — eodnhoj7


Show this.

And tell me what that means?


Regardless, your argument progresses to further arguments, with each argument as a point of origin for further arguments, while cycling back to original arguments (law of identity as one example).

Mine are doing the same thing, but I am arguing for this. You are not, yet you are still stuck in the Laws.


Just face it, these laws are above your laws and whatever law you use exists through them. You can fight against these laws, but you will just be using them. — eodnhoj7

Just face it, these laws are above your laws and whatever law you use exists through them. You can fight against these laws, but you will just be using them.

I am using the Pythagorean Monad, Hindu Bindhu, Lieniz's Monads, Plotinus's Monad/One, as well as the atomist schools as the foundation and synthesizing them in accords with the Hegelian Dialectic while observing base axioms in Euclidian and Non-Euclidian Geometry...and a variety of other sources.

They all exist as extensions of eachother, according to both their reasoning, and the laws themselves.

Actually a child's identity is not the same as an adult's identity. Interests change, relationships change, health changes. — eodnhoj7


This should be basic common sense. Were you someone else as a child? Or is it that you don't know what identity means.

So Identity does change? That means P can mean multiple things at once.

Zeno's paradox is based on hypothesis, not facts. Also, it has nothing to do with what we're discussing.

You gave no definition to mathematics, as mathematics has many definitions. — eodnhoj7

Actually it is science:

https://www.livescience.com/45253-zenos-paradox.html

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



Still trying to evade the crux of the argument.

All of this is in the Prime Triad for all these things are axioms. — eodnhoj7


Which means all the nonsense you're saying is in that triadic whatever.

Not really, I am arguing everything is premised in the point line and circle as axioms, and this definition of the point line and circle occurs through the nature of the point, line and circle with the nature of the point, line and circle being further defined by the relations of the point line and circle.

It is a circular expansion while being an axiom in itself. It allows for belief while defining it through linear and circular reasoning, where this linear and circular reasoning and all axioms as "points of origin" in turn not just justify the laws, but observes all logic is subject to both "form" and "function" in regarde to its nature as axiomatic.

It is using the "Monad" as constant standard for logic, while still allowing for variation. The laws you argue are metaphorically built from a cardboard box.




That's my point. Everything you call 'your logic' is nonsense.

All of this is in the Prime Triad for all these things are axioms.

You can view it as a master argument, which is an axiom, if you wish, based of the "Monad" as the line point and circle.

We also define 0! = 1 to provide consistency in the equations for nPr and nCr — eodnhoj7


Don't change the subject. We're talking about the Law if Identity, P=P.

Yes and 0=1 or more specifically 0! = 1. This is not my rule in math, I am just quoting them. Someone else wrote this.

P cannot be substituted, other wise it changes and is a variable. As a Place holder if is effectively nothing but void. — eodnhoj7


This is not mathematics. It is your own nonsense.

You gave no definition to mathematics, as mathematics has many definitions.

Mathematics (from Greek μάθημα máthēma, "knowledge, study, learning") includes the study of such topics as quantity,[1] structure,[2] space,[1] and change.[3][4][5]

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

No. That's not what it says. This is your own faulty interpretation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes

It is all about infinite movement, not my own interpretation.

The elements governed by reality change. But reality remains itself. Just like we grow up from children to adults but our identity doesn't change. The identity of reality remains the same.

Hence, P=P
Reality=Reality.



The elements governed by reality, are real hence change is governance.

Actually a child's identity is not the same as an adult's identity. Interests change, relationships change, health changes.

P cannot be substituted, other wise it changes and is a variable. As a Place holder if is effectively nothing but void.

We also define 0! = 1 to provide consistency in the equations for nPr and nCr : when r = 0 or r = n, the formula should give values of 1. This will only be possible if (n-n)! equals 1. There are a number of such situations in mathematics where an operation originally defined only for positive integers ("counting numbers"), as evolved from ordinary human uses, is extended to larger sets of numbers. A widely-used example is x^n .

Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/proof-that-0-1.195945/

Zeno's paradox is left with a continuum of measurement resulting in no-change or movement.

The law of idenitity, as a you say is a placeholder, it stays within abstract logic and mathematics.

Unless you are saying logic and mathematics are subject to reality, in which case the nature of variable applies considering reality is in a constant state of change.

Actually it is, the law of identity for P must equal P; hence P determines what equality is. 1 = 0 shows P can having multiple meanings in one respect while P=X in a seperate where X as a different variable is not actually P.

Example 1 = 3-2 but 3-2 is "3" "-" and "2" hence is not the same as P=1.

P can mean multiple things simultaneously.

You are writing it in words but you are not proving it as it is observed in reality (in phenomena). So, there's no proof.

This conversation is a phenomena as well as all the axioms stemming from which is and is not the Prime Triad.

What you've written has nothing to do with Zeno's paradox.
Actually it does the continual progression observes a stability where the axioms never really change due to there continuous empirical and abstract nature as existing through further axioms.

Actually I have. The premises are maintained and progressively observed from seperate angles such as the laws of idenity, 1 = 0, the nature of definition, equivocation and a whole list of further fallacies.

Not really, 1 progressions to a further progression which in itself is progressing. Infinite movement directed through infinite movement.

This can be viewed as a loose reference to zeno's paradox.

Not word salad at all.