RE: virus: Re: Social Metaphysics

Brett Lane Robertson (
Thu, 02 Oct 1997 18:49:27 -0500


I think I've gone on record to state that a tautology is not a valid axiom.
I don't understand the example below; but I assume there is more to it than
"something" exactly equals "the same thing"...I am guessing that it says
something like: something and something else can be viewed as if their
"whole" is equal to the "combination" of the parts. But, while 2=2 might be
a tautology, 1+1=2 is an axiom. (I translate "1+1=2" to say there is that
which exists(1) and that which continues in the same form (a different 1) so
that a relationship between them can be represented as a new existence
("2"...which is neither the first one nor the second, but is--in fact--a
relationship between them)...a definition of "axiom" might therefore be
stated: An illustration which shows existence and being and states a
relationship between them.

I will not argue against set theorists and mathematicians that claim
otherwise. I would be open to further discussion as to which interpretation
is more correct (and on what grounds...other than "my math teacher said so").


At 03:39 PM 10/2/97 -0600, you wrote:
>At 10:13 AM 10/1/97 +0100, Robin Faichney wrote:

>>item, so A=A is tautologous. I believe that makes it
>>invalid as an axiom, but I have to admit I'm not well
>>up on formal systems, and will welcome any comments.

>Tautologies (statements that are necessarily true) are
>valid axioms. For instance, the inference rules of a
>logic system such as (A & B) -> ~(~A v ~B) are tautologous
>axioms. Contradictions (statements that are necessarily
>false) are invalid axioms.

>David McFadzean

Rabble Sonnet Retort
The shortest distance between two points is under

Noelie Altito