Do you deny that the constructs I provided capture the intent of the statements you gave? You said it couldn't be done. I did it. Now you want me to disect them further? Is this a test of my logical parsing abilities or a discussion of the applicability of logic to thought? Must all my responses be in tabulated form to prevent you from running around, saying "See, your response isn't stated formally, ergo, logic isn't the basis of all reason."? Talk about doing away with the aesthic qualities of language.
No. In fact, they simply restate what I said with extraneous parentheses added.
You said it couldn't be done. I did it. Now you want me to disect them further?
You haven't "dissected" them at all. If you are going to make claims about logic which are far from obvious, than it is actual logic you must provide as proof.
Is this a test of my logical parsing abilities
not so far.
or a discussion of the applicability of logic to thought?
It is a discussion, including a lot of noise and not much logic, of the unwarranted claim that you made that you could duplicate the "like" "function" in normal use in human reasoning using deductive logic.
Must all my responses be in tabulated form to prevent you from running around, saying "See, your response isn't stated formally, ergo, logic isn't the basis of all reason."? Talk about doing away with the aesthic qualities of language.
At the risk or repeating myself, if you think you can provide a demonstration that the laws of logic can replace the "like" "operator", than you must utilize the laws of logic to do so. If you don't want to call it a formal proof, fine. You still have to apply the laws of logic systematically to demonstrate how you will replace the "like" "operator".
Nothing you have done so far remotely resembled this.