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

On 7/15/25 9:48 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/15/2025 6:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

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

 psychotic break from reality.
 

Yep, that is what you are going through, but can't recognize it.
Mote, it seems your mental model of the universe can't handle the possiblity that its model isn't 100% correct, but since you are a finite being, it can't be 100% correct, so you just ignore reality and follow your model.
That is your psychotic break.
Sane people can look at facts and see their error.
You just admit that you are doing things wrong (by admitting to facts that show that) but then say you are doing things right,
Of course you can't recognize that, as that would be admitting you are wrong, but you know you can't be wrong, even though you also sort of know that you don't actually know how it works, but think you have made up enough out of your zero principle analysis (that you lie and call first principles, you never knew the first principles to do a first principle analysis).