Logic's contradiction must be completed only by logic's no contradictory nature's impossibility.

Logic's no contradictory nature's impossibility means logic's contradictory nature's the sole necessary or naturalness, in other words, logic's necessity must be only contradictory nature in logic nature.

There, why don't we have some hypothesis that logics is based on usage by ourselves, and true reason that we all are mortal at having the sole nature which is never immortal?

In other words, with these premises, we'd already proved that the us who argue about contradiction's absolute attending reality's inevitableness could never be included in logic.

Simply, the us who debate logic must never be logical presence.
That must mean logics should be completion which should be evidenced no contradiction, nevertheless, the ones who debate it of us must be contradictory, because if we were never contradictory, we'd never debate any no-cotradiction.

It probably must be equivalent with that the us who try to debate logical no-contradiction must be done only through what we as debaters of no-contradiction should be contradictory, because if we are truly no-contadictory presence, from the beginning, we had no need nor necessity to debate any no-contradiction.

In other words, no-contradictory presence must never be the presence which could debate no-contradicitory presence. Because from the beginning, if the presence was without contradiction, the thing ought never to question about its no-contradiction, and only the case now that the debaters as the no-no-contradictory could have necessity to debate no-contradictory subject.

First, we all are mortal, nevertheless we must have had been born once to this world, but except that fact, how we could find truly contradictory (or no contradictory)reality?

In other words, if in world, perfectly no-contradictory thing could be present, that must be only the one which have no necessity to debate no-contradiction, because only contradictory presence could have necessity to debate no-contradictory thing so desperately.
That evidencing truth must be equivalent with stone by itself must never have necessity to debate around stone itself, because the ones who debate must be the ones who are never stone.

In other words, why we are never stone is the reason which we necessarily can debate stone by itself.

If debating necessity could be X. Then, X must never be no-contradiction.
Because if debating necessarily X is no-contradiction, originally X must never need to debate X by itself. What X can be debated necessarily must belong to what X by itself must be contradictory. Only no-contradiction thing could be no need nor no neccesity to debate contradiction nor no-contradiction.

Because debating must be needed only toward being not thinkable nor annoyable (stone by itself must never need debate around stone, because the material as mineral must never have questionable mind, because questionable mind must be had only by contradictory presence like us as what nevertheless being mortal, we are all born to the world).

0 must never (be able to) question 0 by itself.
That must mean that we(as 1 . the presence) could question 0.
Because 0 must no need to question 0 by itself.
The one which can do so must be only not 0 presence like us.
Because 0 must never have questionable mind like us.

If we suppose no-contradiction as replaced with P, next equation must be composed.

P must be 0.
Because only 0 must have no need to question.
Only P could question 0(nothing), because in the case we debate 0, we must be not 0, and actually we all are never 0, but 1 as pesence, though we can question 0.

P must need no question to P, because no-contradictory presence must never be like us.
In other words, only we not P could question.

¬P as us could question P.
Because we all are mortal, thus immortal P could be the object to question.

¬⊥= 0
(¬⊥)= ¬(¬(⊥))

1=¬ 0

1=(¬(¬⊥))

Because 1 could be reduced to 0.

(to be continued)

Dec. 16th.     2021