^ not negation
1 - 1 = 0 is a negation

not not P = P

Not not 0 = anything and everything

Yes... mathematics is derived from that explosion from 0

Zero is its own negation

not A = not A

but can imply either A=A or A=B etc

The explosion is that A and not A infers another thing...
From contradiction you can infer anything... 0 is contradiction, so you infer something, anything else

So 0=1 is ... true if you think of it from some sense or paradigm, yes.
Zero is something (in natural language)

0 =/= Nil

<:szwdab:523446213882937344>

@Seesaw

gay

S(0) the empty set? this is equivocating again...

Because S is something... or the set of nothing is something

A=A so A doesn't = not A, otherwise you are uttering essentially nothing?

Which I'd compare to "Nil"

Its just an utterance with no value?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66enDcUQUK0

If you want it in prop logic, it's in here @ 30 mins

Depends on your beliefs about logic of whether *it needs a language*... since you have to delineate what that means

If "logic" is the metaphysics or the external world, that precedes us (in my belief)
And thus, there's no need for language for logic... granted, you can have higher order logics based on natural laws to communicate back the natural laws in analytic form (natural sciences)

@The Beholder You can start with any premise you want in logic except the absurd ones...

There is X (something)
There is nothing <-absurd premise
Granted, you can think of some world where you keep using the semantic place holder of "nothing" and continue logic... but it seems like it's the same thing as the vacuous tautology

There is something. (you can't make inference to particulars except "something") from this
There is nothing. (you can't make inference to particulars except "nothing") from this...
But this is a pyrrhonic argument where you dispense modus ponens completely

I don't

I've lost the plot of this one

@AusFox are you enjoying this <:Feelsweirdman:644895953064820776>

Anytime you assert a position X.... normatively the position not X is assumed to be false...
So there already is an implicit conjugation

Assuming the LNC

https://youtu.be/66enDcUQUK0?t=2313 time stamp on nothing is an object and contradiction, then he goes over the prop logic syllogism

A = subjective
B = objective
In this argument, yes? I think they're the same thing because I don't accept LEM
A and B have some overlap... (or maybe complete overlap), they are a complete bijection <:pepeLMAO:644901342216847388>

Actually bijection might be the wrong term since it might imply only one directional inference

<:doobyirl:602961252075175965>

If A requires B then yes there is overlap because A = some B

B =/= A

well... this is why I'm a trivialist... I disagree that they're distinct...
For the sake of discussion i let people use whatever semantics they like though

Since then you have to go "Where and when does the subjective become objective?" (You have to answer never, to be consistent)

@L.A.IN i wanna watch monogatari

which season ? And are you realizing methode has bad taste <:Smug:643129431434461194>

@AusFox can you turn up your mic?