Re: Claude.ai provides reasoning why I may have defeated the conventional HP proof

On 7/15/25 8:37 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/15/2025 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/14/25 11:23 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/14/2025 9:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/14/25 3:15 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/12/2025 6:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/11/25 1:12 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/10/2025 11:42 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:

On 2025-07-10 22:29, olcott wrote:

On 7/10/2025 10:58 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:

On 2025-07-10 19:58, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/10/25 10:09 AM, olcott wrote:

>

According to the POE:
(a) The Moon is made of green cheese and
(b) the Moon does not exist
proves that
(c) Donald Trump is the Christ.

>
Rigth, but only because a side affect of (a) is that the moon must exist.

>
Really, the problem here is that Olcott fails to distinguish between the truth of a conditional statement and the truth of the consequent of a conditional statement. They are not the same thing.
>
((X & ~X) implies Y) is necessarily true.
>

>
That is not the exact meaning of these words

>
What is not the exact meaning of which words?
>

>
*This Wikipedia quote*
On 7/10/2025 11:29 PM, olcott wrote:
 >    the principle of explosion is the law according to which
 >    *any statement can be proven from a contradiction*
 > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
>
Here is the exact meaning of:
*any statement can be proven from a contradiction*
∀x (⊥ ⊢ x).
>
>
>

>
And what is wrong with the analysis given one that page:
>

André G. Isaak's paraphrase of this:
"any statement can be proven from a contradiction"
to this:
((X & ~X) implies Y) is necessarily true.
Is incorrect.
>
Here is the correct paraphrase: ∀x (⊥ ⊢ x).
>

>
And Yes that can be PROVEN
>
The givens, Let A be the statement in contradiction, thus
>
1) A is True, and
2) ~A is True, or equivalently A is False
>

>
That simply ignores the law of non-contradiction.
How the F is ignoring this law not nuts?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction
>

>
No, it is the REASON for it. Notice it says:
>

 the proposition and its negation cannot both
be simultaneously true, e.g. the proposition
"the house is white" and its negation
"the house is not white" are mutually exclusive.
 

Right, because if they were both true, we would have a contradiction that allows us to prove anything.
Note, the fact that you need to reduce the logical statements to observational facts, just shows the limitations of your logic.
And, it *IS* possible for your pair of statements to be true, with just a slight adjustment of understanding.
The house is white, could be meaning that the dominate color of the house is white.
The house is not white, could be pointing out that a significant part of the house wasn't white.
The "is" property can be not well defined. Not all system obey the law of non-contradiciton or the law of the excluded middle.
Just the only one small example that you think you understand.

Thus assuming that: the proposition and its
negation are both be simultaneously true is
a psychotic break from reality.
 

But "Logic" doesn't need to be about reality.
You are just showing that you don't know what you are talking about, because you just don't understand how logic works.