Orginally the law of excluded middle must be composed at contradiction. Because probably mathematics could have been convinced to that no contradiction must be integral, then,  necesarrily if  contradiction's perfect deletion could be seen so impossible at regard on mind, all mathematicians and logicians could have one principle which is epoche, and making it as  P ∨ ¬ P so one unsolved question, and they could have decide to go on forward. However its cognition must have been driven by duality idea as affirmation and its denial. That stance necessarily deduces that P ∨ ¬ P, and they all applied to have epoche from the proposition.

Nevertheless, its principle as three fundamental principle of logics must have one so critical false, that is that idea is never taking account of perfect error as kind of apathitic losing to focusing to one definite proposition, and that addition could be done, for the first time, we could have contradictory nature's solution. That must be －(P ∨ ¬ P).

If we regard Identity P=P and No Contradiction －(P ∧ ¬ P) in perfect relevance of the same thing as tautological truth, we should take them one set and as pair setting, we should set another pair, that must be －(P ∧ ¬ P) toward Law of Excluded Middle P ∨ ¬ P.

And we should take Identity and  No Contradiction －(P ∧ ¬ P) one the same condition, and rather an other set as Law of Excluded Middle P ∨ ¬ P and my proposing  －(P ∨ ¬ P) should be taken more mutually diffrentiated otherwise perfectly never crossed relevance, thus we could certainly get true triplity with the identified modus ponens with Identity P=P and No Contradiction －(P ∧ ¬ P) as what to drive us set duality, as the first concept and consequently left two items of proposition could be Law of Excluded Middle P ∨ ¬ P as what to be focusing conscious concept but simultaneously uncertainty as the second concept and the third concept must be necessarily focused thing in impossibility.
First, No Contradiction －(P ∧ ¬ P) must be deduced cogniton from Identity P=P in necessity, meanwhile, these things must be centainty, but the second it as Law of Excluded Middle P ∨ ¬ P the must to result but now uncertain, these two poles with plain truth and what to be certain at sometime or another day necessarily demand one more main pole, and if we could find it, it must be originally perfectly irerevant condition as －(P ∨ ¬ P), nevertheless, at our daily life, that e.g. taking something so granted but misunderstanding or wrong guess, mistake or misprehension or so. And that thing is so frequent, even if we could be noticed to it so quickly, we must nhave that idea, then if we add that concept into ogirinal three proposition, then we could accomplish more updated and rationalized one completed three concepts as main proposition of logics.

And additionally, occasionally Law of Excluded Middle P ∨ ¬ P could be consequently reaches to －(P ∨ ¬ P), this these serially interpreted theory could prove that half substaintially second proposition Excluded Middle P ∨ ¬ P could be buffer zone between Identity P=P and No Contradiction －(P ∧ ¬ P) and perfect error or originally just prehensive false at having idea and its setting order must be so reasonable at contemplating everything with logical thinking.

The next chance to debate these propositional ideas, we should take another approarch, that must be relevance beween certainty as half realizable or half not so (In terms of each sunny day or no could be at each side we should take it same judging as only half) and original empty but seen so momentarily regarded, because that must be logical consistency's precedure as professional thinkers as logician. 

(to be continued)

Feb. 27th. 2021