Sujet : Re: Claude.ai provides reasoning why I may have defeated the conventional HP proof
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theory sci.logicDate : 09. Jul 2025, 15:16:44
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <104ltkd$7l4q$14@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
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.
This is easy to do when semantic meaning is
fully integrated into the formal language.
It is a truism the the POE violates the requirement of truth preserving
operations. People that learn things by rote do not notice this.
If you have contradictory premises, the (non-)truth of that is
preserved...
That is the correct way to do it.
*Here is the psychotic break from that*
the principle of explosion is the law according
to which any statement can be proven from a
contradiction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion-- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Geniushits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
Claude.ai provides reasoning why I may have defeated the conventional HP proof
Re: Claude.ai provides reasoning why I may have defeated the conventional HP proof