On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 12:40:54 -0600, Virgil <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>In article <email@example.com>, > Lester Zick <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote: > > >> >Again, as has been questioned by another poster, what does "universal >> >falseness", or "universally true" mean? >> >> I rather imagine universal self contradiction would be universally >> false and tautological alternatives to universal self contradiction >> universally true. > >May one assume that "The universal self contradiction" would be >something Like "P and not P".
More likely "not not".
>If so then one "tautological alternative" would be the law of the >excluded middle, i.e., "P or not P".
"Not" is the tautological alternative to "not not". The excluded middle is the reason we must reduce possible predicates to an absolute mechanical minimum.
>But there is a whole school of constructive math which rejects the law >of the excluded middle. So it is not "universally true" to them.
Oh hell I reject the excluded middle as well because it's incorrect except in the one case of the fundamental predicate "not" and "not not" not however because I belong to any school of constructive or destructive math but because the excluded middle is flawed.