Sujet : Re: Claude.ai provides reasoning why I may have defeated the conventional HP proof
De : richard (at) *nospam* damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 09. Jul 2025, 12:09:33
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <6b9a8442a442d0c17b80100c5d301b3dc6b18b20@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 7/8/25 10:18 AM, olcott wrote:
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.
And must start with True statements.
There is nothing that says you can't stumble upon a true statement when doing bad logic, it just means you haven't proven the statement to be true.
I can be given the problem of computing the sum of 2 and 2, and build a square that is 2 by 2 and measure its area and happen to get the right answer. (Getting a true conclusion from false premeises, by confusing multiplication with addition). That doesn't make the answer wrong, just not proven.
A proof has no significance in a situation where one or more
of he premises is false.
>
Claude.ai provides reasoning why I may have defeated the conventional HP proof
Re: Claude.ai provides reasoning why I may have defeated the conventional HP proof