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

On 7/11/25 11:30 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/11/2025 3:43 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-07-10 14:09:55 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 7/10/2025 4:05 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-07-09 14:16:44 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 7/9/2025 9:04 AM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 09 Jul 2025 07:31:59 -0500 schrieb olcott:

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:

>

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.

Should only false conclusions be derivable from false premises?

>
False premises must be immediately rejected.

>
Often one must work with sentences that are not known to be true but
not known to be false, either.
>

>
Then contradiction proves falsehood.

>
That's right: if a contradiction is inferred then at least one of the
preimises is false. But that does not tell which premise is false.
>

 *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).
 Is proven to be incorrect in that it diverges
from truth preserving operations.
 

And what step violated "Truth preserving operations?"
IDENTIFY IT OR ADMIT YOU ARE JUST A STUPID LIAR THAT MAKES FALSE CLAIMS.
Remember, the PREMISE has the "impossible" condition of the contradiction as an established truth.
Since we start from something that is a lie, "Truth Preserving" can preserve that lie.
Your problem is you just don't understand what you are talking about.