In article <email@example.com>, Lester Zick <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 14:47:00 -0600, Virgil <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > > You have not read my reference to " logical tautologies" correctly. > > > >If, for example. "P and not P" would qualify as "false" does your > >gobledegook require its negation, "P or not P", to be true? > > "P and not P" is only universally false because it provides no > mechanical basis for alternatives since any "not (P and not P)" > converts into itself "not P and P".
Not in any respectable logic it doesn't. According to de Morgan's laws, "not (P and not P)" is logically equivalent to "P or not P".
> So there is no alternative in > strict mechanical terms because "P or not P" is not always true if P > itself contains a self contradiction because P and "not P" are the > same.
If P contains a contradiction, doesn't that make P false? In normal logic, that would make (not P) true.