I'm not following you.
***H: 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? A: No, it's more than that. A whole lot more.***
Why the mystery? It's an axiom. If there's more than why not blurt it out?
***H: The issue with Alan is that he is treating the axiom as needfully true... A: 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.***
***H: ... but that would be demonstrate a proof of an axiom (which there is none) A: 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.***
Aurino, this is typical of your approach in a few situations between us. You grasp something from some factual statement that I make and then proceed to play the child's game "I know something you don't, na na na". Really, Aurino, didn't you get enough of that game in kindergarten?
Thank me for what? Telling you something that is a known fact of formal systems? I would feel proud that I've helped you understand the basis of things like classical logic, but from your response I don't think you understand it. Instead, you want to play with red herrings then go ahead, but I think the lack of argument (i.e., no argument) speaks for itself.
Have fun! Harv