> I think that all logical connectives, quantifiers and identity are > derivable from a simple semi-formal inference rule denoted by "|" to > represent "infers" and this is not to be confused with the Sheffer > stroke nor any known logical connective. > > A| C can be taken to mean the "negation of A" > > A,B| A can be taken to mean the "conjunction of A and B"
Requires both that and A,B| B.
> x| phi(x) can be taken to mean: for all x. phi(x)
Confusion of propositions and objects.
> x, phi(y)| phi(x) can be taken to mean: x=y
> The idea is that with the first case we an arbitrary proposition C is > inferred from A, this can only be always true if A was False, otherwise we > cannot infer an "arbitrary" proposition from it.
> Similarly with the second case A to be inferred from A,B then both of > those must be true. > > Also with the third condition to infer that for some constant > predicate phi it is true that given x we infer phi(x) only happens if > phi(x) is true for All x.
What's a constant predicate?
> With the fourth case for an 'arbitrary' predicate phi if phi(y) is > true and given x we infer that phi(x) is true, then x must be > identical to y.
Confusion unto Jabberwocky gibberish.
> Anyhow the above kind of inference is somewhat vague really, it needs > to be further scrutinized.
The confusion of predicates and objects is a know failure.