LoF symbolizes one binaric (one of the two binaric entities) by no-mark.
Such symbolization is seemingly not only for elegance in calculation but expresses an asserted degenerate identity in LoF, if not binarics itself, of calculation and calculated, operation and operand, instruction and name.
But one consequence of such symbolization is that the law of calling as symbolized in LoF (here in parenthetic form)
( ) ( ) = ( )
appears to imply that that law applies only to the marked binaric, whereas it must apply to both binarics, as can be seen by symbolizing the marked and unmarked binarics as _m_ and _n_ respectively (as is done in LoF occasionally)
m = ( )
n =
and the law of calling with regard to each binaric as
m m = m
n n = n
The law of calling is more correctly and commodiously expressed in LoF's own algebraic Consequence 5 as
a a = a
Similarly, LoF's symbolization of the law of crossing
( ( ) ) =
again appears to imply that that law applies only to the marked binaric, whereas it must also apply to the unmarked binaric, symbolizable as
( ) = ( )
These last two symbolizations and points are perhaps better understood by again using the labels _m_ and _n_ (in part)
( m ) = n
and
( n ) = m
Note that last parenthetic
( ) = ( )
appears to correspond to the usual law of identity, more correctly and commodiously expressed in binarics as
m = m
n = n
and generally as
a = a
and which does indeed suggest an identity of crossing and identity.
