Sujet : Re: Claude.ai provides reasoning why I may have defeated the conventional HP proof
De : agisaak (at) *nospam* gm.invalid (André G. Isaak)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 15. Jul 2025, 20:28:39
Autres entêtes
Organisation : Christians and Atheists United Against Creeping Agnosticism
Message-ID : <1056a57$8j2u$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 2025-07-15 06:40, olcott wrote:
And what is wrong with the analysis given one that page:
>
André G. Isaak's paraphrase of this:
"any statement can be proven from a contradiction"
to this:
((X & ~X) implies Y) is necessarily true.
Is incorrect.
I wasn't attempting to paraphrase anything. I was simply providing a formula which is true.
André
Here is the correct paraphrase: ∀x (⊥ ⊢ x).
>
>
And Yes that can be PROVEN
>
>
So you agree that André had this wrong when he used
implies(→) instead of proves(⊢).
>
>
>
No, The FACT that ((X & ~X) implies Y) is true is provable.
>
Yet is not an accurate paraphrase of: ∀x (⊥ ⊢ x)
so André was wrong in his paraphrase.
Now, it is also true that (X & ~X) is enough to PROVE any statement, which is actually a stronger statement.
-- To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
…