Good morning again, Mr. Savage...I suppose I can shovel, and clean ice out of my gutters, another time.
Yes. Very good. your A/~A pair, where you presume to define A, AND define ~A, is, in fact, a false dichotomy. It is not an "alleged" false dichotomy, but a bull-goose, in-the-flesh, on-the-hoof, FOB, false dichotomy.
"There are more things under ~A than can be dreamt of in your philosophy, Richratio."
Think of it as analogous to Heisenbergian uncertainty (down, physicists! this is a limited analogy, only). If you define a particle's speed, the precision with which you define its speed is inversely proportional to the precision with which you can define its position. If you define a particle's position, the precision with which you define its position limits the precision with which you can define its speed. (A policeman pulls Heisenberg over, and says to him: "Sir, do you know how fast you were going?" Einstein, in the front seat, leans over and says: "By my calculations, exactly 145 meters per second!" Heisenberg looks at him in horror, and says: "Great! Now I have NO IDEA where we were!")
If you define your A, the only thing that can be said about ~A is that it must include anything and everything else. Once you define A, AND define ~A, in terms of specific characteristics, you have inevitably excluded "everything else", making your dichotomy inherently false...
