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

Liste des GroupesRevenir à s logic 
Sujet : Re: Claude.ai provides reasoning why I may have defeated the conventional HP proof
De : richard (at) *nospam* damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Groupes : comp.theory sci.logic
Date : 16. Jul 2025, 00:05:39
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <07e952139a3fdc5fed0db5f1e31b65a5860d0eb4@i2pn2.org>
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 7/15/25 8:37 AM, olcott wrote:
On 7/15/2025 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/14/25 11:23 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2025 9:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/14/25 3:15 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2025 6:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/11/25 1:12 AM, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2025 11:42 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2025-07-10 22:29, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2025 10:58 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2025-07-10 19:58, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/10/25 10:09 AM, olcott wrote:
>
According to the POE:
(a) The Moon is made of green cheese and
(b) the Moon does not exist
proves that
(c) Donald Trump is the Christ.
>
Rigth, but only because a side affect of (a) is that the moon must exist.
>
Really, the problem here is that Olcott fails to distinguish between the truth of a conditional statement and the truth of the consequent of a conditional statement. They are not the same thing.
>
((X & ~X) implies Y) is necessarily true.
>
>
That is not the exact meaning of these words
>
What is not the exact meaning of which words?
>
>
*This Wikipedia quote*
On 7/10/2025 11:29 PM, olcott wrote:
 >    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
>
Here is the exact meaning of:
*any statement can be proven from a contradiction*
∀x (⊥ ⊢ x).
>
>
>
>
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.
>
Here is the correct paraphrase: ∀x (⊥ ⊢ x).
>
>
And Yes that can be PROVEN
>
The givens, Let A be the statement in contradiction, thus
>
1) A is True, and
2) ~A is True, or equivalently A is False
>
>
That simply ignores the law of non-contradiction.
How the F is ignoring this law not nuts?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction
>
>
No, it is the REASON for it. Notice it says:
>
 the proposition and its negation cannot both
be simultaneously true, e.g. the proposition
"the house is white" and its negation
"the house is not white" are mutually exclusive.
 
Right, because if they were both true, we would have a contradiction that allows us to prove anything.
Note, the fact that you need to reduce the logical statements to observational facts, just shows the limitations of your logic.
And, it *IS* possible for your pair of statements to be true, with just a slight adjustment of understanding.
The house is white, could be meaning that the dominate color of the house is white.
The house is not white, could be pointing out that a significant part of the house wasn't white.
The "is" property can be not well defined. Not all system obey the law of non-contradiciton or the law of the excluded middle.
Just the only one small example that you think you understand.

Thus assuming that: the proposition and its
negation are both be simultaneously true is
a psychotic break from reality.
 
But "Logic" doesn't need to be about reality.
You are just showing that you don't know what you are talking about, because you just don't understand how logic works.

Date Sujet#  Auteur
10 Jul 25 * Re: Claude.ai provides reasoning why I may have defeated the conventional HP proof31olcott
10 Jul 25 +* Re: Claude.ai provides reasoning why I may have defeated the conventional HP proof3joes
10 Jul 25 i`* Re: Claude.ai provides reasoning why I may have defeated the conventional HP proof2olcott
11 Jul 25 i `- Re: Claude.ai provides reasoning why I may have defeated the conventional HP proof1Richard Damon
11 Jul 25 +* Re: Claude.ai provides reasoning why I may have defeated the conventional HP proof25Richard Damon
11 Jul 25 i`* Re: Claude.ai provides reasoning why I may have defeated the conventional HP proof24André G. Isaak
11 Jul 25 i `* Re: Claude.ai provides reasoning why I may have defeated the conventional HP proof23olcott
11 Jul 25 i  +* Re: Claude.ai provides reasoning why I may have defeated the conventional HP proof21André G. Isaak
11 Jul 25 i  i`* Re: Claude.ai provides reasoning why I may have defeated the conventional HP proof20olcott
12 Jul 25 i  i +- André G. Isaak still has not noticed his mistake1olcott
13 Jul 25 i  i `* Re: Claude.ai provides reasoning why I may have defeated the conventional HP proof18Richard Damon
14 Jul 25 i  i  `* Re: Claude.ai provides reasoning why I may have defeated the conventional HP proof17olcott
15 Jul 25 i  i   `* Re: Claude.ai provides reasoning why I may have defeated the conventional HP proof16Richard Damon
15 Jul 25 i  i    +* Re: Claude.ai provides reasoning why I may have defeated the conventional HP proof7olcott
15 Jul 25 i  i    i`* Re: Claude.ai provides reasoning why I may have defeated the conventional HP proof6Richard Damon
15 Jul 25 i  i    i `* Re: Claude.ai provides reasoning why I may have defeated the conventional HP proof5olcott
16 Jul00:35 i  i    i  +- Re: Claude.ai provides reasoning why I may have defeated the conventional HP proof1olcott
15 Jul23:39 i  i    i  `* Re: Claude.ai provides reasoning why I may have defeated the conventional HP proof3Richard Damon
16 Jul02:47 i  i    i   `* Re: Claude.ai provides reasoning why I may have defeated the conventional HP proof2olcott
16 Jul12:26 i  i    i    `- Re: Claude.ai provides reasoning why I may have defeated the conventional HP proof1Richard Damon
15 Jul 25 i  i    `* Re: Claude.ai provides reasoning why I may have defeated the conventional HP proof8olcott
15 Jul 25 i  i     `* Re: Claude.ai provides reasoning why I may have defeated the conventional HP proof7Richard Damon
15 Jul 25 i  i      `* Re: Claude.ai provides reasoning why I may have defeated the conventional HP proof6olcott
16 Jul00:05 i  i       `* Re: Claude.ai provides reasoning why I may have defeated the conventional HP proof5Richard Damon
16 Jul02:48 i  i        `* Re: Claude.ai provides reasoning why I may have defeated the conventional HP proof4olcott
16 Jul12:32 i  i         `* Re: Claude.ai provides reasoning why I may have defeated the conventional HP proof3Richard Damon
16 Jul16:21 i  i          `* Re: Claude.ai provides reasoning why I may have defeated the conventional HP proof2olcott
17 Jul03:16 i  i           `- Re: Claude.ai provides reasoning why I may have defeated the conventional HP proof1Richard Damon
11 Jul 25 i  `- Re: Claude.ai provides reasoning why I may have defeated the conventional HP proof1Richard Damon
15 Jul 25 `* Re: Claude.ai provides reasoning why I may have defeated the conventional HP proof2Tristan Wibberley
15 Jul15:25  `- Re: Claude.ai provides reasoning why I may have defeated the conventional HP proof1olcott

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal