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

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

On 7/10/2025 4:02 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-07-09 12:31:59 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 7/9/2025 3:29 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-07-08 14:18:32 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 7/8/2025 2:41 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-07-07 13:57:28 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 7/7/2025 3:20 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-07-06 14:48:45 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 7/6/2025 3:30 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-07-05 15:18:46 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 7/5/2025 4:06 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-07-04 20:16:34 +0000, olcott said:
>

https://claude.ai/share/48aab578-aec3-44a5-8bb3-6851e0f8b02e

>
Perhaps an artificial idiot can think better than you but it does
not think better than most participants of these discussions.

>
Yet you cannot point out any actual error.

>
There is no error in your above quoted words.
>

What is not provable is not analytic truth.

>

I totally agree. Not only must it be provable it must
be provable semantically not merely syntactically.

>
In order to prove anything a proof must be syntactically correct.
Then the conclusion is semantically true if the premises are.

>
Not exactly. Some of logic is wrong.

>
There is no example where ordinary logic derives a false conclusion from
true premises. Other logics may contain mistakes so they should not be
used unless proven valid.

>
The one that I have in mind derives a true conclusion
from false premises.

>
True conclusion from false premeises is fairly common. But that is not
relevant.

>
It proves that logic is fundamentally incorrect on this point.
Logic must be a sequence of truth preserving operations or it is wrong.

>
Your straw man logic is incorrect. Whenever ordinary logic has been
compared to reality it is found to be correct.

>

Logic belongs to analytical truth, reality belongs to
empirical truth. They are not the same.

>
Nevertheless, ordinary logic is empirially valid.
>

 Not at all. All of logic is a mental abstraction
with no physical existence.
 

It is a truism the the POE violates the requirement of
truth preserving operations. People that learn things by
rote do not notice this.

>
The requirement of truth preserving operations only applies to proofs.

 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.
The key point is that any (broken) system that can actually PROVE (or have as premises) the first two, can. but basic logic, prove the third statement.
OF course, to be able to prove the first two means that the system is already "broken" and can not correspond to reality.
It seems you don't understand that last part.

 

In that context the requirement can be further restricted. A small
set of inference rules, even a singlet, is sufficient if you have s
sufficiently rich set of axiom rules.
>

 The POE has always been completely false.
 

Nope, it is PROVEN.
Show the error in the proof, or you are just admitting that you think lying is good logic.
Go ahead, you have already proven that conclusion (that you think lying is good logic).