In a message dated 5/27/2010 4:28:17 A.M., jejunejesuit.geary2@xxxxxxxxx writes: "A rose is rose is a rose is a rose" is not a tri-tautology. --- tetra-tautology? No. TRI-tautology. In Geary's algebra, the idea of "deja vu all over again" should be strictly taken: "a rose is a rose" --- bi-tautology. Since "mon-tautology", "a rose" is NOT one. "a rose is a rose is a rose" -- tri-tautology "a rose is a rose is a rose is a rose" -- tetra-tautology. Howevr, in Geary's algebra: "I submit that what Speranza and St. Anselm ("Commentary on Plato's Parmenides") calls "bi-tautology" is not such. Or rather, tautologous. I propose to refer to Speranza's bitautology as a monotautology. This yields Anselm's tritautology as my bitautology, and, of course, their tetratautology as a tritautology." JLS