"fom" <fomJUNK@nyms.net> wrote in message news:iNOdna24I74eTjTMnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d@giganews.com... > On 5/31/2013 10:36 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote: >> "fom" <fomJUNK@nyms.net> wrote in message >> news:UY-dnUnFksIIUDrMnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@giganews.com... >>> On 5/30/2013 11:20 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote: >> <snipped> >> >>> is there a criterion >>> for deciding whether either of the complete connectives should >>> be viewed as the canonical complete connective? That is, is >>> there an asymmetry in the dyslexia we call truth-functional >>> logic? >> >> Why should there be a canonical one? > > After one long answer... a simpler observation. > > When mathematicians are confronted with a multiplicity > of equivalent forms, they often seek "a principal branch".
Yes, mathematicians. But I don't need to be reminded what a good mathematician or a good professional would do, and, by the way, I am only marginally interested in history, my focus is purely theoretical. That said, the point in question was how could there be a privileged starting point when we are talking about a system whose *essential* nature is the self-referentiality / the circularity.
> The relationship of that view to general equivalence seems > to be related to failures of the distributive laws in certain > structures.
There, the point in question was: how could you (or anybody) justify calling that "logic"?
> It certainly manifests itself in logic. The > distributive laws become an issue in the logical research of > Pavicic and Megill. Their logic is, however, algebraic in > nature.
> My "story" is in the following link. It also contains a > discussion of "principal branches" at the end. This open > apology to the few talented professionals who participate > in this newsgroup had been motivated by some misunderstandings > that had happened. I am the one with non-standard views, so > the burden of explanation and smoothing any disagreements > falls to me. > > https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/sci.logic/2HXfcubT468
I respect your approach, it's just not mine: I am an ever student, but not any more than anybody else is.