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

On 7/11/2025 10:50 AM, joes wrote:

Am Fri, 11 Jul 2025 10:30:35 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/11/2025 3:43 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-07-10 14:09:55 +0000, olcott said:

On 7/10/2025 4:05 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-07-09 14:16:44 +0000, olcott said:

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.

>
Often one must work with sentences that are not known to be true
but not known to be false, either.
>

Then contradiction proves falsehood.

>
That's right: if a contradiction is inferred then at least one of the
preimises is false. But that does not tell which premise is false.
>

*This Wikipedia quote*
  >    the principle of explosion is the law according to which *any
  >    statement can be proven from a contradiction*
Here is the exact meaning of:
*any statement can be proven from a contradiction*
∀x (⊥ ⊢ x).
Is proven to be incorrect in that it diverges from truth preserving
operations.

 
How so? If A and ~A are both true, B also is.
 

It is flat out nuts to assume that "A and ~A are both true".
One cannot simply ignore the law of non-contradiction.