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

On 7/16/25 11:21 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/16/2025 6:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

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.
>

 Then people that accept the POE are insane at least
on this one point.
 

No, people that deny it fall prey to it.
I guess you don't understand that systems DO exist that fail to follow the law of non-contradiciton. Of course, some of the other properies in them are different so they might not blow up.
For instance, "Race" in earlier times. In many