Do you believe in the law of the excluded middle? If not, why?

I want to believe

>>9165219
Why can't you?

I'm a ZFCfag so yeah the law of excluded middle is my jam.

I'm a type theory guy because platonism is for dorks and I've come to realize that proofs and syntax are all we really have

>>9165229

but anon, type theory is a form of platonism

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhelnMkzyF0

>>9165232
(not true by the way)

>>9165234

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cratylus_(dialogue)#Platonic_Theory_of_Forms

"So mustn't a rule-setter also know how to embody in sounds and syllables the name naturally suited to each thing? And if he is to be an authentic giver of names, mustn't he, in making and giving each name, look to what a name itself is? And if different rule-setters do not make each name out of the same syllables, we mustn't forget that different blacksmiths, who are making the same tool for the same type of work, don't all make it out of the same iron. But as long as they give it the same form--even if that form is embodied in different iron--the tool will be correct, whether it is made in Greece or abroad."

>>9165234
never thought I'd see that outside of /mu/

>>9165214
I believe in its double negation.

>>9165741
I don't not believe you.

File: despair.jpg (87KB, 468x248px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 468x248px

Yes, mathematics would be hell without it

>>9166130
Only if you're a complete brainlet, which you seem to be.

File: 1499801507757.png (273KB, 579x681px) Image search: [Google]

273KB, 579x681px

>>9165214
I don't, since I believe in its negation.