Timeline for When we say that the law of identity doesn't exist, does it mean it's always A=A is always false or that A=A is not always true?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 5, 2021 at 21:42 | vote | accept | CommunityBot | moved from User.Id=37389 by developer User.Id=58754 | |
| Jun 5, 2021 at 21:29 | answer | added | Mark Andrews | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jun 5, 2021 at 13:31 | answer | added | Bumble | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jun 5, 2021 at 10:42 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jun 20, 2021 at 3:06 | |||||
| Jun 5, 2021 at 10:19 | comment | added | Mauro ALLEGRANZA | In logic x=x is valid i.e. always true. In High-Order logic we can derive it from the Definition of Identity | |
| Jun 5, 2021 at 5:47 | comment | added | Logikal | The context you are using is bad. You are making the law of identity seem like a rule of inference. It is not like a modus ponens or disjunction syllogism and so on. The law of identity is a consistency concept. If one argues that A means one thing & later uses A in a different context that is a fallacy. It should be called out. So the law is important. If A has the same context then A is either always true or always false. We can compare propositions in this way. | |
| Jun 5, 2021 at 3:53 | answer | added | Double Knot | timeline score: -2 | |
| Jun 5, 2021 at 3:51 | answer | added | RodolfoAP | timeline score: 4 | |
| Jun 5, 2021 at 2:52 | history | asked | user37389 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |