Are these valid?

Question

What a characteristic is = What a characteristic has
What a character is ≠ What a character has
A character has a characteristic.

What an equivalence is = What an equivalence has
What a difference is ≠ What a difference has
A difference has an equivalence in itself.

What an invariant is = What an invariant has
What a variant is ≠ What a variant has
A variant has invariants.

Answer 1

Your logic is great!!

Answer 2

They are probably most likely to be valid in the frame of reference that we can perceive. Yet there is no exclusion for a character without characteristic, even if sophists would then bombard the total lack of characteristic as characteristic for that specific character.

When you look at equivalence and difference you stumble into a stranger paradoxical opposite, for instance if you divide infinity by two it would still be infinity it doesn’t become finite by division, same goes for adding or subtracting from infinite. For the maths that we master infinity is an immutable value that only by means of abstraction can differ from itself.

When you take a similar property as infinity, though now crown it eternity than you reach the absolute invariant. As in there is always time, but it's not the same time everywhere all the time! Yet the total amount of all time is invariant. As time itself is invariant.

Basically validity plays within a certain reference frame, like is the playground of Einstein’s relativity theory which I now use to move away from the tangible or physical plane but apply it to the intangible or phenomenological plane. The truth herein is that because we can’t perceive a certain state does not make that state non-existent. If the circumstances in such a state permit than you could right there end up with characters without characteristic, equivalence without compare or differentiation to compare or invariable variants or invariants. That point would likely be the absolute reference!

Answer 3

I'm 'new' in this section, I usually stick to R/S. But if you want my honest opinion, I'd have to say that all that you typed seems like so much inconsequential hocus pocus to me. For example is this right...
What a good answer is = What a good answer has
etc.
etc.

Answer 4

The label is just a name describing the contents, so a similar label cannot describe a label !

Answer 5

it's needed to be consider carefully before the conclusion. in philosophy world, things could be right or wrong, its depend on attitude, belief and desire of each person. with me, those sentences are deeply meaningful and absolutely valid. where do u get it from?