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

On 7/11/25 4:52 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/11/2025 10:50 AM, joes wrote:

Am Fri, 11 Jul 2025 10:30:35 -0500 schrieb olcott:

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*
  >    the principle of explosion is the law according to which *any
  >    statement can be proven from a contradiction*
>
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.

>
How so? If A and ~A are both true, B also is.
>

 It is flat out nuts to assume that "A and ~A are both true".
One cannot simply ignore the law of non-contradiction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction
 

But that is the BASIS of the Principle of Explosion.
I guess you just don't understand how language works.
Just like it is flat out nuts to assume that your decider is correct to say non-halting, when the stated criteria of the problem is that is is about the behavior of the direct exectution of the program described by the input, and you admit that this halts.
In other words, you are just admiting that you don't understand what you are tallking about, and emphatically make statements that you are actually ignorant about.
Sorry, that is how you sunk your reputation and proved yourself to be a liar.