Great minds discuss ideas;

average minds discuss events;

small minds discuss people.

/ Eleanor Roosevelt /

Isn’t it better to discuss my formulas ?

§ 1. Vacuum: T= 0K, E= ∞ , p = 0, t =∞ .

§ 2. Particles: C/D= pi, R/N=k, E/M=c^2, h=0, c=0, i^2=-1, e^i(pi)= -1.

§ 3. Photon: h=E/t, h=kb, h=1, c=1.

§ 4. Electron: h*=h/2pi, c>1, E=h*f , e^2=ach* .

§ 5. Gravity, Star formation: h*f = kTlogW : He II -- > He I -- > H -- > . . .

etc

=======..

These colour and fontspams make me sad. Anyways,

(2) says h=0. I'm not nearly done studying quantum, so i may well be wrong, but as far as i'm aware h=0 implies no quantum effects. h=0 also implies formulas following in (3), (4) and (5) are meaningless. (They describe quantumeffects, where as h=0 implies no quantum)

One could argue that every equation in mathematics is a tautology because both left and right say the same thing.

On the other hand we could argue that even an identity, as A = A, is not a tautology since one A is on the left while the other is on the right, making them different.

I was taught two diffrent definitions considering tautology.

The first is rather irrelevant here, but concerns language. 'White snow' or 'Green grass' (forgive me for my lack of imagination) would be considered tautologies, because snow implies it's white, and grass implies it's green (to certain extent, atleast.) The adjective does not offer any additional information.

And then there's the mathematical / logic definition of tautology, which stated that an equation is a tautology only if the equation is an identity for every possible value of every single variable in the equation.

A = not ( not ( A )) would be considered a tautology in regular formal logic, because it's true no matter what A represents. This is opposed to a contradiction, a statement which is never true for any value of any variable.

A = not (A) would be considered a contradiction.

Not every equation in maths is a tautology.

x² > 0 is a tautology in R, but not in C. etc.

What I think you meant, however, is that in arithmetics, following statements must be tautologies, which I think is true.

x² - 4x + 4 = 0 (statement)

<-> (x-2)² = 0

<-> x = +-2

equations with = would not be tautologies, but transformations of these equations by arithmetic changes would be tautologies.