A=A is the identity relationship and it is an axiom of logic (i.e., true by definition). Is that what you mean to say, that "LNC" is an axiom of formal logic?

No, it's more than that. A whole lot more.

The issue with Alan is that he is treating the axiom as needfully true...

Hah! That's the whole point! What I understand, what I believe Dick is talking about, what I think Alan is starting to grasp, if he hasn't already, is why the axiom cannot possibly be false.

... but that would be demonstrate a proof of an axiom (which there is none)

I can see clearly now, the rain is gone. Here is the rainbow I've been praying for.

Harv, you have no idea how thankful I am that you made that statement. That makes it clear what stands in your way of understanding what's ultimately a very simple concept.

Unfortunately I can't possibly expect to succeed where Dick and Alex have miserably failed. But that's OK, I don't want to teach you anything you don't want to learn, I just wanted to understand what's going on in your head and now I do.

Thanks again!

• Huh? - harvey1 - April 9, 2002 - 16:27 UTC
  • One man's "axiom" is another man's "foundation"! - doctordick - April 9, 2002 - 17:25 UTC
    • This is more acceptable - harvey1 - April 9, 2002 - 17:48 UTC
      • Logic must be done very carefully! - doctordick - April 9, 2002 - 19:41 UTC
        • "The Crux" - harvey1 - April 9, 2002 - 19:48 UTC
          • Thank you Aurino; People: just a minute! - dolphin - April 11, 2002 - 07:52 UTC
            • Reply - harvey1 - April 11, 2002 - 12:29 UTC
              • Harv, Aurino: Conjectures And Refutations - dolphin - April 14, 2002 - 10:25 UTC
                • Covering some of these issues - harvey1 - April 14, 2002 - 15:32 UTC
            • ... and then you blew it - aurino - April 11, 2002 - 13:01 UTC
              • - stormcrow - May 10, 2002 - 17:54 UTC