We already have reasons to think triangles are logically possible. Based on axiomatic systems like Euclidean geometry. We don’t have a similar mathematical model of perfect-essential necessity, that shows it to be realistic/possible.
EDIT: I think the version I gave is kind of like a mix of Anderson’s or Fitting’s, not sure, I made the change myself. But they’re pretty similar anyway.
No I’m saying the if “being regular is a perfect-generating property of a triangle” then “it is necessary that there are regular triangles” means that “there is a thing that exhibits the property of perfect-essential necessity.” If you think it is logically necessary that triangles exist (or something that has the property of being a regular 3-sided shape), then perfect-essential necessity can be called perfect without the contradiction you point out.
We already have reasons to think triangles are logically possible. Based on axiomatic systems like Euclidean geometry. We don’t have a similar mathematical model of perfect-essential necessity, that shows it to be realistic/possible.
Also we do have a model of these axioms, to be clear, since it was formalized in Isabelle, routing through checking for the existence of a model. Here if you want to read it yourself :) https://www.isa-afp.org/entries/Types_Tableaus_and_Goedels_God.html
EDIT: I think the version I gave is kind of like a mix of Anderson’s or Fitting’s, not sure, I made the change myself. But they’re pretty similar anyway.
No I’m saying the if “being regular is a perfect-generating property of a triangle” then “it is necessary that there are regular triangles” means that “there is a thing that exhibits the property of perfect-essential necessity.” If you think it is logically necessary that triangles exist (or something that has the property of being a regular 3-sided shape), then perfect-essential necessity can be called perfect without the contradiction you point out.