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

On Tue, 2025-07-15 at 20:02 -0500, olcott wrote:

On 7/15/2025 7:47 PM, 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?
>

>
If you start with falsity end end up with truth then
the operation was not truth preserving.
>
If there are tens of thousands of textbooks that
disagree then they are necessarily incorrect when
we go by the compositional meaning of the terms
of "truth" and "preserving". To make a term of the
art meaning that disagrees with the compositional
meaning has always been dishonest.
>

 This is a typical "learn-by-rote".
The Halting Problem is clear... there is always a counter-case an
assumed H cannot solve.
 

This is FACT, not influenced by ANY theory/rule: "1+1=2", Logic,..., have no
effect on this fact.
 

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
>
>

>