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

On 7/15/2025 7:59 PM, wij wrote:

On Tue, 2025-07-15 at 18:47 -0600, André G. Isaak wrote:

On 2025-07-15 18:39, olcott wrote:

On 7/15/2025 7:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:

On 2025-07-15 17:53, olcott wrote:

On 7/15/2025 6:45 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:

On 2025-07-15 17:35, olcott wrote:

 

You still make the same mistake with the implication operator.
That has always been the wrong operator for PROVES.

 
You're being an idiot. The principle of explosion can be stated
either in terms of implication or proof. I prefer implication.. I'm
not mistaking one symbol for another. I'm saying exactly what I
intend to say.
 
André
 

 
Yet implication is not even truth preserving.
 

 
You seem to be using some private definition of 'truth preserving'.
Did you get that one from claude.ai as well?
 
André
 

 
the characteristic of an argument where,
if the premises are true, the conclusion
must also be true.
 
When the antecedent is false the consequent
can be true with the "→" operator.

 
And how would that make it non-truth preserving?
 
You're very confused. Since you seem to trust/overrely on wikipedia, you
can check against the following:
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_function#Algebraic_properties
 
André
 

 
What olcott quotes has no real meaning (not what average people reads).
 
olcott cannot understand the difference of logic-IF and logical-AND.
He can copy, quote and good at it. But as always, he just say it, his
brain is fried, he does not understand what they mean.
 

 
I have been a professional computer programmer since
1986 and a C++ software engineer since 2000.