AB Sulaiman's explanation of the Aristotelian axiom of the excluded middle is misleading. The proper context of this axiom is in mathematics, specifically logic. The axiom may be formulated as 'Either P is Q, or P is not -Q; P cannot be simultaneously not Q and not not -Q.'

A well-known use of this axiom is in Euclid's proof of the infinitude of prime numbers, circa 2,300 years ago. By initially assuming the finitude of the set of prime numbers, one arrives by logical deduction at the existence of a prime number not in the set, a contradiction. Hence, the set of prime numbers cannot be finite.

The problem with Sulaiman's examples of this so-called 'law' lies in the logical fallacy known as bifurcation or the false dichotomy. Take the statement 'every fruit is either a papaya or a durian.' This is not an accurate statement of reality, since there are fruits that fall outside of these two categories.

By proving that the fruit I ate last night wasn't a durian, one cannot conclude I must have eaten a papaya. Moreover, a correct application of the rule requires overhauling the statement to read 'every fruit is either a papaya or not a papaya,' the truth of which is evident.

Sulaiman's statement that 'if one side is white, the other must be black' actually illustrates a triple false dichotomy rather well. The questions that immediately arise are: firstly, are there only two sides? Secondly, are there indeed only two colours? And finally, must each side be exclusively matched to a single colour, and vice versa?

Sulaiman also claims that 'whatever truth it holds, this law will amplify and glorify it. It has tendency to hyperbolas (sic)'. I do not know if geometers have an especial affinity to this tool of logic, but I do know that a little learning is often a dangerous thing, misleading exaggerations notwithstanding.

Most situations in the real world are not cleanly bifurcated. In the real world, few opportunities avail themselves for a useful and accurate application of the 'excluded middle' rule.