Some (all) of those are axioms and not laws. Another way to express equivalence is with a biconditional <->.
The absorption laws demonstrate a trivial symmetry, misleading one to believe that an inverted conjunction to a disjunction is somehow necessary, when in fact p & absolutely everything is implied by p.
I take issue with this anyway. Whether p implies p & anything else doesn't seem right. The argument would be
>hurr durr 'implies' only means necessary and that requirement is satisfied by p in conjunction with absolutely anything
But the p is not sufficient for p in conjunction with anything, which is a necessary condition for any equivalence or biconditional, you retarded schizophrenic imagining.
