Assumptions of Coherentism / Categorical Deduction

Assumptions for the system, roughly:

(1) Every term has an opposite, or at least an imaginary opposite, even if no opposite has yet been formalized, it can be thought about in terms of the first term and its opposite properties.

(2) Each opposite may be used to express all associations for the term symbolically, because at least relatively no other term may do so in each case, or alternate terms may be used. Later, terms are compared, so that the relativism is eliminated through relative relativism = degree absolutism, which may also be called iterative positivism.

(3) Opposites can occupy a Bounded Cartesian Coordinate System because by expressing opposites the only term they do not include is zero, although zero could still be used as an opposite for infinity or infinity plus one in some cases.

(4) Opposites are opposed along the diagonal, because opposites must occupy the furthest possible distance, and in a bounded Cartesian Coordinate System diagonal positions meet this criteria.

(5) Relationships must not be directly opposite, that is opposites cannot be compared without cancelling out and equaling zero. Therefore, the only option is to compare opposites indirectly. This happens to result in a clockwise and counter-clockwise formula in quadratics that I call categorical deduction.

(6) Since categorical deduction is the only possible option for any double-pair of quadratic categories and meets the above criteria, it is coherent.

(7) Since categorical deduction tends to have fewer deductions than categories, it is exponentially efficient.

(8) Optionally, it may be important to use a language in which states and qualities are roughly scientifically equivalent, since this makes sentence-forming easier.

The mod 2 set neutral Boolean set operators I discovered are is, as is, just as, when, so, and as such (in ascending numbers of total categories)


For original source, SEE: https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-logical-system-in-which-anything-can-be-expressed/answer/Nathan-Coppedge/comment/20172336