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

On 7/8/2025 2:41 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-07-07 13:57:28 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 7/7/2025 3:20 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-07-06 14:48:45 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 7/6/2025 3:30 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-07-05 15:18:46 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 7/5/2025 4:06 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-07-04 20:16:34 +0000, olcott said:
>

https://claude.ai/share/48aab578-aec3-44a5-8bb3-6851e0f8b02e

>
Perhaps an artificial idiot can think better than you but it does
not think better than most participants of these discussions.

>
Yet you cannot point out any actual error.

>
There is no error in your above quoted words.
>

What is not provable is not analytic truth.

>

I totally agree. Not only must it be provable it must
be provable semantically not merely syntactically.

>
In order to prove anything a proof must be syntactically correct.
Then the conclusion is semantically true if the premises are.

>
Not exactly. Some of logic is wrong.

>
There is no example where ordinary logic derives a false conclusion from
true premises. Other logics may contain mistakes so they should not be
used unless proven valid.

>
The one that I have in mind derives a true conclusion
from false premises.

 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.

A proof has no significance in a situation where one or more
of he premises is false.
 

--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer