Are you perhaps confused about modus ponens logic, axioms and theorems?
No, it appears that you are confused between an axiom and a theorem. An axiom is a self-evident truth, whereas a theorem requires a chain of reasoning. (Oxford Dictionary)
It appears you are chewing straw… again gasp.
Yes, axioms are self-evident truths. Theorems are true statements derived from axioms (you got that right).
If you were sharp, you would realise that modus ponens, axioms and theorems can be used to make this:
If three-sided figure on Euclidean plane (axiom), then interior angles always add up to half a rotation (theorem).
Given three-sided figure on Euclidean plane.
Therefore interior angles add up to half a rotation.
Or to put it differently:
If axiom P, then theorem Q is true
Axiom P is given,
Therefore theorem Q is true.
Need a toothpick?
At last you got the difference between an axiom and a theorem right! I’m glad to have been of assistance. Now all you need to realize is that you cannot prove the validity of a theorem with a modus ponens. It is quite irrelevant to the argument.
Ok then, if you say so lol.
I tried to prove the validity of a theorem with modus ponens? ROFL, more straw from you.
Right, actually it does prove nothing. That is why I said it is irrelevant to the argument.
You write about straw a lot. Haven’t you been fed?
You ate all of it :-.