quote:
by this reasoning {$1 + $1 = $2} is not the same as {1 euro + 1 euro = 2 euros} because you have to consider the meaning of "$" and "euro" first
LOL, yes thats obviously true. Whether or not they are negotiable currency changes with locale.
Of course, what you are trying to present is an appeal to the pure numbers...
quote:
1+1=2 doesn't have any material reality. nor does 6x9=42. do you dispute the validity of math too? you keep introducing things to the argument that don't bear on it: this is a(nother) classic strawman example.
Well, which mathematical system are you appealing to? Euclidian? Non-Euclidian? There are multiple coherent mathematical systems, any of which could be taken as valid. We use one.
Thats in fact a prime example of why you have to be careful which of several logically coherent systems you adopt - merely becuase they are logically coherent does not mean they describe reality.
quote:
and (surprise) again you miss the point: either the argument structure is logical (and therefore the logical conclusion is the same regardless of the subject that fits the conditions of the argument), or the argument structure is not logical (in which case it should be easy to point out the logical fallacy).
LOL - I did not miss the point at all. All your construction here shows is that a nonsense, but logical, argument can be constructed. So what? That does not in any sense imply that reality should echo your favoured conclusion. Merely because something is logical does not mean the thing exists.
quote:
I also note you still have yet to post your actual quotes of my posts demonstrating that your claims were valid representations of my position -- as you were challenged to do, and as you agreed (not that you haven't broken agreements before ... ).
Well why don't you go back to the original thread, where I already did so? Repeating myself would only be a courtesy to you.