Can this grant PP1?

[Azertyhuuh]

What if there is a character who is both dead and alive at the same time? Would that be enough to grant them PP1, considering they are simultaneously dead and alive?

This is a true dichotomy, since in this example a being must either be alive or dead. In this case, if the character is both alive and dead at the same time, then that should grant PP1.

Here it is stated that Masayuki is one of the high-ranking undead, and thus Masayuki is neither alive nor dead, but both dead and alive at the same time.

Masayuki was of the same bloodline as Lain. As a vampire considered one of her “children,” he was also a high-ranking undead.

There is a type that is completely dead and is not considered alive, as in this example, where it is mentioned that there are undead and other entities that are not fully alive. This means that the first type is both alive and dead at the same time, whereas the second category is completely dead and not alive at all.

It’s impossible to kill someone who is already dead, isn’t it?”
The “Immortals Corps” consisted of about a hundred members, mostly undead, golems, and similar beings that were not considered ‘alive.’ In other words, it was an entire unit made up of entities immune to Instant Death Magic.

However, the other type, like Masayuki, is among the undead—both alive and dead at the same time.

 

[Azertyhuuh]

I kindly ask one of the staff members to move it to the Questions section, as I made a mistake and posted it in the Content Revision section.

 

[CJunitilarian]

isn't it supposed to be logical negations and not opposites; A and ~A
So instead of Dead and Alive, it should be Dead and Not Dead

 

[Azertyhuuh]

isn't it supposed to be logical negations and not opposites; A and ~A
So instead of Dead and Alive, it should be Dead and Not Dead

It's the same thing.
Dead or not dead = dead or alive.
Another example:
Existence or non-existence = existent or non-existent.
These also fall under logical dichotomies.
It is not necessary for it to be phrased as "alive or not alive" or "dead or not dead," because they are essentially the same thing expressed differently. Life and death, as well as existence and non-existence, are fundamentally logical dichotomies.

 

[CJunitilarian]

It's the same thing.
Dead or not dead = dead or alive.
Another example:
Existence or non-existence = existent or non-existent.
These also fall under logical dichotomies.
It is not necessary for it to be phrased as "alive or not alive" or "dead or not dead," because they are essentially the same thing expressed differently. Life and death, as well as existence and non-existence, are fundamentally logical dichotomies.

iirc, just being "dead" (that is for life and not life dichotomy) shouldn't really cut
cause the logical negation of life is all that life isn't and not just being dead
existence and non existence is correct because existence is everything non existence isn't

My little understanding

 

[Azertyhuuh]

isn't it supposed to be logical negations and not opposites; A and ~A
So instead of Dead and Alive, it should be Dead and Not Dead

As I said, life and death are a logical dichotomy in and of themselves.
You are applying the A and ~A framework to things that already constitute a logical dichotomy. I'm not sure how best to explain it, but the idea is fairly simple.
Existence and non-existence are also a logical dichotomy, even though they are not explicitly expressed as A and ~A.
If a character is alive, then they are not dead. If they are dead, then they are not alive. And if they are both alive and dead at the same time, that would qualify them for PP1.
Alive or not alive = alive or dead.
Not alive = dead.
The issue is that you are applying the A and ~A formulation even to concepts that are already logical dichotomies by nature. In the end, you arrive at the same result anyway—the wording changes, but the conclusion remains the same.