The intrinsically most integral issue around thinking of logics must be the presence of our thinking style to output middle.

Middle as the result of thinking is produced with the commonsense around usage of our consideration. That is one straight line, nevertheless essentially our issue we must address with is anytime three. If we try to formulate three integral propositions only at using one straight line(or any windin g state is okay, in other words not closed two hem holding cut line), we are obliged to rely on only two hems and one center point. This is the traditionally thought logical three principles as with Law of identity, Law of noncontradiction and Law of excluded middle in question.

But, if we set from the beginning, not one cut straight or any sourt of line, just rely on triangle, each apex must be not middle, because any apex must be evading only middle, any apex ccould be middle, but any apex ccould never be the sole middle. In other words, at logical thinking, we can set the order which could never guide any middle. That order must be nothing but triangle. 

These conventional logical three principles are dependent on duality as idea of dualism and twin pair thinking style as affermation and negation, or correctness and error or wrong answer, and these recogniton must have no middle, in other words, no middle holding order must output consequently and necessarily middle. 

However, from the beginning we can set middle, what only middle could be contradictory issue as our obligedly annoyable issue could never be produced. 

In other words, if we succeed to formulate another form to what makes either middle which we've conventionally used as the neck to be solved and guided to what is not having middle, we'd get smooth method to deal with everything.

Law of Identity

       → ←

Law of Noncontradiction

      ¬(¬ ( → ←))

But upper two things are the same dimensionally propositional methods.

Law of Excluded Middle

→ ← ∨ ← →

Thereby, we need another one recognitive model, if we think that three propositions in set must be correct. 

That could be

→ ← nor ← →

in other words,

¬(→ ← ∨ ← →)

If we set the last formula as Logical expressions, we could solve all contradictory issues.

By the way, as Russle examples, either circle not triangle, we could solve these issues as making plain answering come under to us as the disentanglement.

However, at these logical process, the most in tegral issue is the last one as my supposing thing must never be zero nor empty, that almost resembles mind of inertias, rather very subjective indifference, then it could be similar to denial, but denial means formal assertion, but my supposing thing is almost mind to evade assertion, lethargy, in other words, this means our mind when we have error at negligence, to what we'd done.

With these procedures, we could compose the formulation evading usage of straight line and option to adopt triangle or circle, it could make any three element as each one point go through beyond maximally one another point, not two points. This thing could be impossible at using one cut line(straight or winding line) with two hems, because only circle or triangle, square or any multiple apexes holding shape, or okay either at no apex just closed in other words, closed shape is the absolute condition. 

(to be continued) 

Reffered from Bartland Russell "Introduction to Mathematics Philosophy"
This approach means slider rule's mechanism to spatially, namely two dimensional application not one dimensional limitation.

Mar. 12th.  2021