Logic Redefined

If thou cannotst read the following, then it's due to thou does notst speak Language of Supreme Logic, so to speak.

Let there be 0101, if 0101 is immune to 0000, but can be damaged to 1111, then upon meeting 0000, 0101 remains 0101.  While meeting 1111, 0101 becomes 1010.  And the newly object 1010 has the property opposite of 0101 - immune to 1111 but can be damaged by 0000.  These relations so to speak, can be expressed in the following format:

0101 + 0000 = 0101
0101 + 1111 = 1010
1010 + 1111 = 1010
1010 + 0000 = 0101

From here, subtraction equations can be withdrawn from these "addition equations"

0101 - 0000 = 0101
1010 - 1111 = 0101
1010 - 1111 = 1010
0101 - 0000 = 1010

(fallacy detected, for good reasons) (highlighted here for good reasons as well) (enguardian levi-old-sauce)

Or the following format:

0101P0000=t1-0101
0101P1111=t2-1010
1010P1111=t2-1010
1010P0000=T1-0101

Or the more complicated, necessary or unecessary format as follows:

P(0101,0000)e 0101t1
P(0101,1111)e 1010t2
P(1010,1111)e 1010t2
P(1010,0000)e 0101t1

From the above, this shows us that the format or the formality of it does not really affect the basis of it, so to speak.  And the result would all be the same, despite these utterly seemingly different algorithms (equations). So then, the statuos quo belief that things can only be expressed in 1 way has been broken - now the lock, the shackle has truly been identified as a shackle and not a helper, and also in addition broken into pieces. Now we are free, I hope.

Logic, the underlying, which is the true-happening remains despite seemingly utter changes happened at the fundamental from these utter changes at the surface.  Only thing raised in difficulty or major changes is the easiness of use, which only has to do with familarity of one to that format - a variety out of trillions of infinite possiblities of expression of the same idea.  With any of these calculation formats, the same result is yield, and the same idea is expressed - like a group of individuals with the same idea - their clothing or certain ambigurous stuff on the surface does not have to be same or similar - in fact should be different, in addition the expression of fundamental idea has near-zero correlation with the outer expression at all nearly of every times.  So, then, we draw to the conclusion that two clones that look the same must be opposite competitors, while different looking folks must be of the same person expressed in different ways.  That's the true meaning of diversity? That is something good for thought here, certainly