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

On 7/15/2025 4:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:

On 2025-07-15 14:05, olcott wrote:

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_implication
is a not truth preserving operation.
>
∀x (⊥ ⊢ x) simply ignores
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction
>
The necessity operator is typically represented by the symbol □.
(A ∧ ¬A) □ ⊥ (and nothing else)

 You really need to review your basic logic. (A ∧ ¬A) □ ⊥ doesn't mean anything. What you (might) be trying to claim is □((A ∧ ¬A) → ⊥), though that statement would be false.
 André
 

You still make the same mistake with the implication operator.
That has always been the wrong operator for PROVES.
(A ∧ ¬A) How are logicians fooled into ignoring the law
of non-contradiction?
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer