> IAN: So you say that "atomism = holism"
> and that there is a class of people that
> are atomists, but why are they not holists?
They ARE. They're BOTH. Atomism IS holism.
>
> >To wit: Name a few. Quote some. Give an example.
>
> IAN: That's my point, there's no free thing.
No, no, you misunderstood: I wanted you to quote an atomist who actually
believes in the 3 Laws as written. To provide a quotation of such
absurdity. To give an example which is actually given by a real,
honest-to-goodness atomist, rather than your hypothesis about what an
atomist WOULD say if he believed the 3 Laws.
I bet you can't find an atomist who supports your laws as written; I've
got lots of atomists who agree with my definition: it is atomism by 100%,
and it is also holism. Can you deal with that?
> IAN: You said 0 has no ID because the difference
> between 0 and 0 = 0, I showed that's also true for 1.
As always, you misunderstand: It has no identity because this particular
number has no difference from zero. That is not the same as saying a
number has no identity because it is not different from itself; it
specifies a very particular number, the difference from which defines the
partial identity. 0 has no identity because it is not different from the
"with respect to" number, not because it is the same as itself.
> IAN: And the sum of all difference
> is 0 in one or all reference frames,
> as the matrix can be just one frame.
And?
> IAN: So relative identity attributes are
> not identity attributes, like "6 is 6 more
> than 0" is not and identity attribute of 6.
It sure is; you list it on your identity matrix. It's not very useful
(kind of like the universe which consists only of A and B), but it is
identity, even under your definition.