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

And what is wrong with the analysis given one that page:
>

André G. Isaak's paraphrase of this:
"any statement can be proven from a contradiction"
to this:
((X & ~X) implies Y) is necessarily true.
Is incorrect.

Here is the correct paraphrase: ∀x (⊥ ⊢ x).
>

>
And Yes that can be PROVEN
>

>
So you agree that André had this wrong when he used
implies(→) instead of proves(⊢).
>
>

>
No, The FACT that ((X & ~X) implies Y) is true is provable.
>

 Yet is not an accurate paraphrase of: ∀x (⊥ ⊢ x)
so André was wrong in his paraphrase.
 

Now, it is also true that (X & ~X) is enough to PROVE any statement, which is actually a stronger statement.