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

On 7/16/25 11:09 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/16/2025 9:44 AM, Andy Walker wrote:

On 15/07/2025 22:34, André G. Isaak wrote [to PO]:

You really need to review your basic logic. (A ∧ ¬A) □ ⊥ doesn't
mean anything. What you (might) be trying to claim is □((A ∧ ¬A) →
⊥), though that statement would be false.

>
     In my childhood, people used to say "If [very unlikely event],
I'm a Dutchman".  I haven't heard it recently, perhaps because it's
somewhat non-PC, but it suggests that the general population knows
perfectly well that "If false then X" is true for any "X", whether
"X" be true or false, and therefore carries no implication about the
truth or falsity of "X".  In similar vein, PO's example about the Moon
and the current US President forms a true statement, including the
semantics thereof, regardless of the properties of Mr Trump.
>
     The nearest to a common public misunderstanding is that many
assume that "If it rains, I shall carry an umbrella" implies that "If
it does not rain, I shall not carry an umbrella", which of course does
not follow.  Normal people accept the distinction if it is pointed out,
though they may well think you're being over-pedantic.
>
     IOW, the general public accepts "basic logic" well enough to
follow as much as is needed for the standard HP proof;  if they don't
understand the proof, it's for reasons other than a failure of logic.
>
     I don't expect PO to change his mind, which makes this, like
almost all threads here for well over a decade, a fruitless debate.
But feel free to waste your time ....
>

 If we assume that (A ∧ ¬A) is true we violate
the law of non-contradiction thus are proven to
be incorrect before we even begin the POE.
 

So?
It just means we are working in a system where it turns out the law of non-contradiction didn't hold.
If you bother to read the page on that law, you will see that it is derived from the Principle of Explosion, as we need it to make systems with the power to enable the principle of Explosion to be useful, as systems that can prove anything aren't very useful.
Of course, your statement says that your proof is dead, as it depends on a contradiction, first, the claim that the code of HHH isn't in the program DDD, so that all the different HHH's see the "same" input, but you also clam that all the HHH's get to see that code as part of their "input" so they can simulate it.
Sorry, you are just proving you don't know how logic works.