[Tares]

Your argument, if examined in the light of day, should convince you that you are a little confused here. How can you claim "like" has several different meanings, and in the same breath, claim that "like" is just a shorthand for a series of logical operators?

Because for each meaning there is a different series of logical operators and attributes being operated on.

What you are doing with the "like" operator is intentionally mixing domains of discourse, because intuitive insight may be a more important than preserving logical precision.

The overall domain is the domain of thought. Thought about football and thought about homicide do not use different sets of logical operators, only the sequences of operations and the terms operated upon differ.

[donh]

Because for each meaning there is a different series of logical operators and attributes being operated on.

And so, for the third time, what is the series of logical operators?

The overall domain is the domain of thought.

There is no "overall" domain. If that existed, it would include plane geometry, and sub-nuke theory under one umbrella, and as we have discussed, that means things could be commutative, and non-commutive at the same time.

To speak sensibly about applying the discrete laws of logic, you must be addressing a set of related, well-formed sets of things--things you can clearly say are in either set A, or set B, or ...

To speak of an "overall" domain is to commit yourself to fallacies of the excluded middle. Like virtually ALL mathematicians, I don't think you are really talking about much of anything at all that logical axioms apply to, unless you specify, either implicitly or explicitly, a well-formed domain of discourse. Discrete logic ain't about big fuffy clouds of vaguely understood existence. Discrete Logic is about things you can unambiguously plop into sets because that's all discrete logic tells you about at base--what you know axiomatically about how things in overlapping sets can relate to each other.

Thought about football and thought about homicide do not use different sets of logical operators, only the sequences of operations and the terms operated upon differ.

That's not the germane question. The fact is that any logic you apply to football is not likely to be usefully related to any logic regarding homicide. If you don't guarantee a well-formed domain of discourse--about things related to each other in terms of football exclusively, or homicide exclusively, you haven't guaranteed that you are talking sense in applying logic.