eodnhoj7

. All axioms are points of origin; hence all axioms as progressive linear definition and circularity are points of origins. The point of origin progre...

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!...

. All axioms are points of origin; hence all axioms as progressive linear definition and circularity are points of origins. The point of origin progre...

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 cy...

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 throug...

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 wi...

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 c...

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...

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 ...

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 recu...

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...

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 h...

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 p...

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 ...

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 ...

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 structur...

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 follow...

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...

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 usin...

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 synthesizi...

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

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 ...

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 Iden...

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 movemen...

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 on...

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 sta...

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...

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 pheno...

Actually I have. The premises are maintained and progressively observed from seperate angles such as the laws of idenity, 1 = 0, the nature of definit...

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

and so is "word", hence one axiom progresses to another and cycles back to the original simultaneously. Covered in Prime Triad.

Not changing the subject of "change" as a place holder can be use for a progressive change as: (1?((n??)=?))

Yes, and "Logic" is derived from the ancient not the modern: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic even sourced in the wiki version. You can make up stu...

It really doesn't matter because if P = (1?((n??)=?)) mathematically P is a variable of change.

Logic is "word" according to the greeks, that is the original source.

A variable may change from 1 to 2 relative to the equation: 1 = x With x being anything from 1 to 1+1-1, 1+2-2, etc.

Actually it is in proof right now. All axioms lead to further axioms and the axioms cycle back to there origins. Logic is movement and an act of synth...

Not really, the law holds that "P" is a variable that can mean "anything", they just do not apply "anything" as the variable. — eodnhoj7 NO! P is not ...

The standard laws of Logic apply to these fallacies as well: 1) The Law of Identity: P=P P can be observed as "all definitions" leading to the fallacy...

delete.