You have declared B(X) and B(~X)
as is often done (re: P=P, Q=~P)
yet you have not proven (or examined) that X is properly (and only) dividable into X, ~X for all cases of "X"
for practice: "this sentence is not true". is easily correct, if one realises that it -assumes- that the only possible values of the sentence are covered by X OR ~X. (ie the B(X)= TRUE || B(~X)=FALSE).
When one realises that "a square circle" looks exactly like 'a square circle', and thus can be "real" then one starts to understand the a priori assumptions one has created when looking at conditions tested by B(X) and B(~X) as proof tests.
:) Not believing in belief (or faith) is a belief.
You have declared B(X) and B(~X) as is often done (re: P=P, Q=~P)
yet you have not proven (or examined) that X is properly (and only) dividable into X, ~X for all cases of "X" for practice: "this sentence is not true". is easily correct, if one realises that it -assumes- that the only possible values of the sentence are covered by X OR ~X. (ie the B(X)= TRUE || B(~X)=FALSE). When one realises that "a square circle" looks exactly like 'a square circle', and thus can be "real" then one starts to understand the a priori assumptions one has created when looking at conditions tested by B(X) and B(~X) as proof tests.
:) Not believing in belief (or faith) is a belief.