Thank you and I do. Already this line: " P and not P; that is,
being and not being. not (P or not P); that is, neither being
nor not being. It is interesting to note that under
propositional logic, De Morgan's laws imply that the fourth case
(neither P nor not P) is equivalent to the third case (P and not
P), and is therefore superfluous." De Morgan's laws'
implications of "neither nor not" is equivalent to "not" -
REALLY, to me, puts a missing spot in propositional logic.
There's several fallacies that really aren't fallacies at all,
but they're based upon a limitation of the system being worked
within.
