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

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.
Thus assuming that: the proposition and its
negation are both be simultaneously true is
a psychotic break from reality.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer