Re: (OT) Re: Object identity
- From: "Mark Nicholls" <Nicholls.Mark@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 30 Jun 2006 02:14:14 -0700
Therefore you can prove that all statements are both true and
false.
That depends on the axioms:
?!?!?
explain
?!?!?!
1. A V not A
2. not (A & not A) [+/- de Morgan's rules]
And, also, what is A.
?!?!?!
I don't see the relavance.
1. A & not A
2. A
3. C V A
4. not A
5. C
1. A & not A
2. A
3. not C V A
4. not A
5. not C
for any C...I can prove anything....no axioms except "A & not A".
I am my own grandpa.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: (OT) Re: Object identity
- From: Dmitry A. Kazakov
- Re: (OT) Re: Object identity
- References:
- Object identity
- From: David Barrett-Lennard
- Re: Object identity
- From: H. S. Lahman
- Re: Object identity
- From: David Barrett-Lennard
- Re: Object identity
- From: H. S. Lahman
- Re: Object identity
- From: David Barrett-Lennard
- (OT) Re: Object identity
- From: Gabriel Claramunt
- Re: (OT) Re: Object identity
- From: Dmitry A. Kazakov
- Re: (OT) Re: Object identity
- From: David Barrett-Lennard
- Re: (OT) Re: Object identity
- From: Dmitry A. Kazakov
- Object identity
- Prev by Date: Re: Object identity
- Next by Date: Re: Object identity
- Previous by thread: Re: (OT) Re: Object identity
- Next by thread: Re: (OT) Re: Object identity
- Index(es):