Sujet : Re: Claude.ai provides reasoning why I may have defeated the conventional HP proof
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 15. Jul 2025, 21:05:42
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <1056cam$8lvo$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 25
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 7/15/2025 2:28 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_table#Logical_implicationis a not truth preserving operation.
∀x (⊥ ⊢ x) simply ignores
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradictionThe necessity operator is typically represented by the symbol □.
(A ∧ ¬A) □ ⊥ (and nothing else)
-- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Geniushits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
…