https://claude.ai/share/48aab578-aec3-44a5-8bb3-6851e0f8b02e
On 7/4/2025 3:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/4/25 4:16 PM, olcott wrote:
https://claude.ai/share/48aab578-aec3-44a5-8bb3-6851e0f8b02e
Since you LIE with the following statement;
Termination Analyzer HHH simulates its input until
it detects a non-terminating behavior pattern. When
HHH detects such a pattern it aborts its simulation
and returns 0.
Since there is no such pattern in the input, since its execution halts,
Directly executed Turing machines are outside of the
domain of every Turing machine partial halt decider,
thus DDD() does not contradict HHH(DDD)==0.
since HHH DOES return 0 as you stipulated, this statement is just a
lie of asserting the existance of a condition that doesn't exist.
https://claude.ai/share/48aab578-aec3-44a5-8bb3-6851e0f8b02e
https://claude.ai/share/48aab578-aec3-44a5-8bb3-6851e0f8b02e
On 7/4/2025 3:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/4/25 4:16 PM, olcott wrote:
https://claude.ai/share/48aab578-aec3-44a5-8bb3-6851e0f8b02e
Since you LIE with the following statement;
Termination Analyzer HHH simulates its input until
it detects a non-terminating behavior pattern. When
HHH detects such a pattern it aborts its simulation
and returns 0.
Since there is no such pattern in the input, since its execution halts,
Directly executed Turing machines are outside of the
domain of every Turing machine partial halt decider,
thus DDD() does not contradict HHH(DDD)==0.
since HHH DOES return 0 as you stipulated, this statement is just a
lie of asserting the existance of a condition that doesn't exist.
Note, its first conclusion was:
Both analyzers correctly identify the termination behavior,
demonstrating that the halting problem's undecidability doesn't
prevent practical termination analysis in specific cases where
patterns can be detected.
Ah great so you didn't totally ignore what it said.
Note the conditional WHERE PATTERS CAN BE DETECTED. Since there is no
correct pattern, HHH can't detect what doesn't exist, and thus if it
ACTUALLY did what you claimed was its algorithm, it would run forever
and fail to be a decider.
It also said that it does detect this pattern itself.
It put that on its second page.
*Execution Trace of DD correctly simulated by HHH*
When HHH(DD) simulates DD:
1. HHH begins simulating DD
2. DD calls HHH(DD) - this creates a recursive simulation
3. HHH detects that simulating DD leads to DD calling HHH(DD) again
4. This creates an infinite recursive pattern: DD→HHH(DD)→DD→HHH(DD)→...
So, all you are doing is proving that you logic is based on lying, and
that AI isn't smart enough yet to detect that lie.
Not at all. This is merely you not paying close enough attention.
On 7/5/2025 2:43 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 05.jul.2025 om 00:08 schreef olcott:
On 7/4/2025 3:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/4/25 4:16 PM, olcott wrote:Directly executed Turing machines are outside of the
https://claude.ai/share/48aab578-aec3-44a5-8bb3-6851e0f8b02e
Since you LIE with the following statement;
Termination Analyzer HHH simulates its input until
it detects a non-terminating behavior pattern. When
HHH detects such a pattern it aborts its simulation
and returns 0.
Since there is no such pattern in the input, since its execution halts, >>>
domain of every Turing machine partial halt decider,
thus DDD() does not contradict HHH(DDD)==0.
Irrelevant, because HHH should report on its input.
Thus you are agreeing with me and disagreeing with dbush
and many textbooks.
This input includes the abort code and specifies a halting program.
*That is the part that is way over your head*
If HHH was reporting on its own termination status you
would be correct.
HHH(DD) is reporting on whether of not DD simulated by HHH
according to the semantics of the C programming language
can possibly reach its own simulated "return" statement.
void DDD()
{
HHH(DDD);
return;
}
DDD is the simplified version of DD().
That is proven by direct execution of the same input, but there is no
need for the HHH to know about the direct execution.
The direct execution is only a proof of the failure of HHH.
*No it is not proof of failure*
The requirement that halt deciders report on things outside
of their domain (directly executed machines) has always been
bogus. All directly executed Turing machines have always been
ouside of the domain of all Turing machine based deciders.
Claude understands this and agrees and sees this as a new idea.
since HHH DOES return 0 as you stipulated, this statement is just a
lie of asserting the existance of a condition that doesn't exist.
On 7/5/2025 7:54 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/4/25 6:08 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/4/2025 3:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/4/25 4:16 PM, olcott wrote:Directly executed Turing machines are outside of the
https://claude.ai/share/48aab578-aec3-44a5-8bb3-6851e0f8b02e
Since you LIE with the following statement;
Termination Analyzer HHH simulates its input until
it detects a non-terminating behavior pattern. When
HHH detects such a pattern it aborts its simulation
and returns 0.
Since there is no such pattern in the input, since its execution halts, >>>
domain of every Turing machine partial halt decider,
thus DDD() does not contradict HHH(DDD)==0.
Says what?
What about UTMs? They are Turing Machies, and there output *IS* the
behavior of the Directly executed Turing Machine.
To the best of my knowledge the behavior of the correct
simulation of an input is the same as its direct execution
except for the halting problem counter example input. The
"received view" of this is to simply give up on this input.
I did do better than that.
Is arithmatic also outside of the domain of every Turing Machine since
"numbers" can't be given to Turing Machines?
since HHH DOES return 0 as you stipulated, this statement is just a
lie of asserting the existance of a condition that doesn't exist.
Note, its first conclusion was:
Both analyzers correctly identify the termination behavior,
demonstrating that the halting problem's undecidability doesn't
prevent practical termination analysis in specific cases where
patterns can be detected.
Ah great so you didn't totally ignore what it said.
Yes, and I point out your errors, which YOU just totally ignore, as
you can't handle the truth.
Note the conditional WHERE PATTERS CAN BE DETECTED. Since there is
no correct pattern, HHH can't detect what doesn't exist, and thus if
it ACTUALLY did what you claimed was its algorithm, it would run
forever and fail to be a decider.
It also said that it does detect this pattern itself.
It put that on its second page.
Only because you told it a LIE that HHH DOES detect such a pattern.
*Execution Trace of DD correctly simulated by HHH*
When HHH(DD) simulates DD:
1. HHH begins simulating DD
2. DD calls HHH(DD) - this creates a recursive simulation
3. HHH detects that simulating DD leads to DD calling HHH(DD) again
4. This creates an infinite recursive pattern: DD→HHH(DD)→DD→HHH(DD)→...
Right, it used your LIE that this pattern is a non-halting patttern,
whne it isn't
You can't gaslight me on this any more.
Every chatbot found this pattern on its own without prompting.
So, all you are doing is proving that you logic is based on lying,
and that AI isn't smart enough yet to detect that lie.
Not at all. This is merely you not paying close enough attention.
Nope, YOU are the one with the problem.
Note, you have yet to actually answer any of my refutations, because
you just can't.
Your world is just based on lies.
Maybe the doctrine that they teach at your church is
that you can get away with lies and Revelation 21:8 does
not apply to you. I am not taking that chance.
On 7/5/2025 4:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-07-04 20:16:34 +0000, olcott said:
https://claude.ai/share/48aab578-aec3-44a5-8bb3-6851e0f8b02e
Perhaps an artificial idiot can think better than you but it does
not think better than most participants of these discussions.
Yet you cannot point out any actual error.
What is not provable is not analytic truth.
I totally agree. Not only must it be provable it must
be provable semantically not merely syntactically.
Claude does provide the proof on the basis of understandings
that I provided to it. Here is the key new one:
Since no Turing machine can take another directly executing
Turing machine as an input they are outside of the domain
of any Turing machine based decider.
The requirement that a partial halt decider to report on the
behavior of a directly executed machine has always been bogus.
Opinions of artificial
idiots are not relevant. You have not proven any of your claims.
On 7/5/2025 2:43 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:That is your misconception. HHH should not report on its own
Op 05.jul.2025 om 00:08 schreef olcott:
On 7/4/2025 3:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/4/25 4:16 PM, olcott wrote:Directly executed Turing machines are outside of the
https://claude.ai/share/48aab578-aec3-44a5-8bb3-6851e0f8b02e
Since you LIE with the following statement;
Termination Analyzer HHH simulates its input until
it detects a non-terminating behavior pattern. When
HHH detects such a pattern it aborts its simulation
and returns 0.
Since there is no such pattern in the input, since its execution halts, >>>
domain of every Turing machine partial halt decider,
thus DDD() does not contradict HHH(DDD)==0.
Irrelevant, because HHH should report on its input.
Thus you are agreeing with me and disagreeing with dbush
and many textbooks.
This input includes the abort code and specifies a halting program.
*That is the part that is way over your head*
If HHH was reporting on its own termination status you
would be correct.
On 7/6/2025 3:30 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-07-05 15:18:46 +0000, olcott said:
On 7/5/2025 4:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-07-04 20:16:34 +0000, olcott said:
https://claude.ai/share/48aab578-aec3-44a5-8bb3-6851e0f8b02e
Perhaps an artificial idiot can think better than you but it does
not think better than most participants of these discussions.
Yet you cannot point out any actual error.
There is no error in your above quoted words.
What is not provable is not analytic truth.
I totally agree. Not only must it be provable it must
be provable semantically not merely syntactically.
In order to prove anything a proof must be syntactically correct.
Then the conclusion is semantically true if the premises are.
Not exactly. Some of logic is wrong.
An analytic proof requires a semantic connection
from a set of expressions of language that are
stipulated to be true. I used C and x86 as my proof
languages.
Claude does provide the proof on the basis of understandings
that I provided to it. Here is the key new one:
Since no Turing machine can take another directly executing
Turing machine as an input they are outside of the domain
of any Turing machine based decider.
By the same reasning there are no universal Turing machines.
Counter-factual. UTMs are easy.
But the
reasoning is not correct. The halting problem requires that a halt
decider must predict what happens later ir the descirbed comutation
is performed.
That is an incorrect requirement.
Partial halt deciders can only report on the actual
behavior that their actual input actually specifies.
The requirement that a partial halt decider to report on the
behavior of a directly executed machine has always been bogus.
The Wikipeda page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem confirms
what I said above. The magic word "bogus" has no effect, no matter how
may times you say it.
All of the halting problem proofs depend on an input
to a partial halt decider doing the opposite of whatever
the decider decides. No such input exists.
*The standard halting problem proof cannot even be constructed*
int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}
int main()
{
HHH(DD); // DD cannot do the opposite of HHH
DD(); // The caller of HHH(DD) is not its input
}
Opinions of artificial
idiots are not relevant. You have not proven any of your claims.
Your claims remain unproven as long as you don't prove them. You may
ask an AI to show a rigorous proof but ultimately its up to you to
prove or fail to prove your claims.
Since all four ai bots independently derive the essence
of my reasoning on their own this disavows all of the
gaslighting to the contrary:
typedef void (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
void DDD()
{
HHH(DDD);
return;
}
int main()
{
HHH(DDD);
}
DDD simlated by HHH according to the semantics of
the C programming language cannot possibly reach its
own simulated "return" statement final halt state.
This proves that the input to HHH(DDD) specifies
a non-halting sequence of configutations.
On 7/6/2025 3:30 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-07-05 15:18:46 +0000, olcott said:
On 7/5/2025 4:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-07-04 20:16:34 +0000, olcott said:
https://claude.ai/share/48aab578-aec3-44a5-8bb3-6851e0f8b02e
Perhaps an artificial idiot can think better than you but it does
not think better than most participants of these discussions.
Yet you cannot point out any actual error.
There is no error in your above quoted words.
What is not provable is not analytic truth.
I totally agree. Not only must it be provable it must
be provable semantically not merely syntactically.
In order to prove anything a proof must be syntactically correct.
Then the conclusion is semantically true if the premises are.
Not exactly. Some of logic is wrong.
An analytic proof requires a semantic connection
from a set of expressions of language that are
stipulated to be true.
I used C and x86 as my proof
languages.
Claude does provide the proof on the basis of understandings
that I provided to it.
Here is the key new one:
Since no Turing machine can take another directly executing
Turing machine as an input they are outside of the domain
of any Turing machine based decider.
By the same reasning there are no universal Turing machines.
Counter-factual. UTMs are easy.
But the reasoning is not correct. The halting problem requires
that a halt decider must predict what happens later ir the
descirbed comutation is performed.
That is an incorrect requirement.
Partial halt deciders can only report on the actual
behavior that their actual input actually specifies.
The requirement that a partial halt decider to report on the
behavior of a directly executed machine has always been bogus.
The Wikipeda page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem confirms
what I said above. The magic word "bogus" has no effect, no matter how
may times you say it.
All of the halting problem proofs depend on an input
to a partial halt decider doing the opposite of whatever
the decider decides. No such input exists.
*The standard halting problem proof cannot even be constructed*
On 7/7/2025 3:20 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-07-06 14:48:45 +0000, olcott said:
On 7/6/2025 3:30 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-07-05 15:18:46 +0000, olcott said:
On 7/5/2025 4:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-07-04 20:16:34 +0000, olcott said:
https://claude.ai/share/48aab578-aec3-44a5-8bb3-6851e0f8b02e
Perhaps an artificial idiot can think better than you but it does
not think better than most participants of these discussions.
Yet you cannot point out any actual error.
There is no error in your above quoted words.
What is not provable is not analytic truth.
I totally agree. Not only must it be provable it must
be provable semantically not merely syntactically.
In order to prove anything a proof must be syntactically correct.
Then the conclusion is semantically true if the premises are.
Not exactly. Some of logic is wrong.
There is no example where ordinary logic derives a false conclusion from
true premises. Other logics may contain mistakes so they should not be
used unless proven valid.
The one that I have in mind derives a true conclusion
from false premises.
An analytic proof requires a semantic connection
from a set of expressions of language that are
stipulated to be true.
It requires a syntactic connection. A semantic connection can always
be expressed with a syntactic connection. Other ways of expression
tend to lead to errors.
It can be a semantics connection express syntactically.
Unless all of the relevant semantics are included terrible
mistakes are made. For example type mismatch errors.
I used C and x86 as my proof
languages.
They cannot be used as proof languages as they don't have any concept
of inference. In addition, they don't have any reasonable
interrpetation as
truth-bearer languages.
The semantics of the x86 language specifies every single
detail of each state transition such that disagreement
is inherently incorrect.
Claude does provide the proof on the basis of understandings
that I provided to it.
Which are not acceptable premises for those reader who undrstand
the halting problem and related topics.
*This definition has proven to be perfectly fine*
Termination Analyzer HHH simulates its input until
it detects a non-terminating behavior pattern. When
HHH detects such a pattern it aborts its simulation
and returns 0.
That people disagree with the result of that merely
proves that they have poor understanding of programming.
Here is the key new one:
Since no Turing machine can take another directly executing
Turing machine as an input they are outside of the domain
of any Turing machine based decider.
By the same reasning there are no universal Turing machines.
Counter-factual. UTMs are easy.
Indeed. If your reasoning were correct an universal Turing
machine would be impossible but there are universal Turing
machines so (by the inference rule known as modus tollens)
your reasoning is not correct.
A UTM is one thing. A UTM that can watch the behavior
of its input detecting non-terminating patterns is
something else.
But the reasoning is not correct. The halting problem requires
that a halt decider must predict what happens later ir the
descirbed comutation is performed.
That is an incorrect requirement.
A requirement is correct if it is possible to determine whether
it is satisfied. If the prediction is "does not halt" and a
direct execution halts then the requirement is
proven to be incorrect. Halt deciders have never actually
been required to report on elements outside of their domain
of TMs encoded as finite strings. When textbooks say otherwise
they are wrong. Because you only learn these things by rote
memorization and have no actual depth of understanding you may
never get this.
not met and the
predicting machien is not a halt decider, because that is what
the words mean.
Predicting the behavior specified by their input.
Not predicting the behavior of things that are not
TMs encoded as finite strings.
Partial halt deciders can only report on the actual
behavior that their actual input actually specifies.
They cannot do even that for every possible behaviour. Some of
them can determine more cases than some others but none of them
can determine all cases.
For the crucial counter-example input DD emulated by
HHH cannot possibly reach its own final halt state.
The requirement that a partial halt decider to report on the
behavior of a directly executed machine has always been bogus.
No, it is not:
You already know that TMs can only take finite string
encodings of TMs. The directly executed machine is not
a finite string at all.
The Wikipeda page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
confirms
what I said above. The magic word "bogus" has no effect, no matter how >>>> may times you say it.
All of the halting problem proofs depend on an input
to a partial halt decider doing the opposite of whatever
the decider decides. No such input exists.
An analytic truth is that such input is constructible.
Unless you try to actually do it and find that all such
cases do not involve actual inputs.
*The standard halting problem proof cannot even be constructed*
It has been constructed and published and checked and found good.
But the proof does not apply to your work because your work is
not about the halting problem.
https://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP_317-320.pdf
When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.∞
if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
When Ĥ.embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to Ĥ.qn it is correct.
The computation that Ĥ.embedded_H is contained within:
"Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩" is not an actual input to Ĥ.embedded_H.
On 7/7/2025 3:20 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-07-06 14:48:45 +0000, olcott said:
On 7/6/2025 3:30 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-07-05 15:18:46 +0000, olcott said:
On 7/5/2025 4:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-07-04 20:16:34 +0000, olcott said:
https://claude.ai/share/48aab578-aec3-44a5-8bb3-6851e0f8b02e
Perhaps an artificial idiot can think better than you but it does
not think better than most participants of these discussions.
Yet you cannot point out any actual error.
There is no error in your above quoted words.
What is not provable is not analytic truth.
I totally agree. Not only must it be provable it must
be provable semantically not merely syntactically.
In order to prove anything a proof must be syntactically correct.
Then the conclusion is semantically true if the premises are.
Not exactly. Some of logic is wrong.
There is no example where ordinary logic derives a false conclusion from
true premises. Other logics may contain mistakes so they should not be
used unless proven valid.
The one that I have in mind derives a true conclusion
from false premises.
On 7/8/2025 2:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-07-07 13:57:28 +0000, olcott said:
On 7/7/2025 3:20 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-07-06 14:48:45 +0000, olcott said:
On 7/6/2025 3:30 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-07-05 15:18:46 +0000, olcott said:
On 7/5/2025 4:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-07-04 20:16:34 +0000, olcott said:
https://claude.ai/share/48aab578-aec3-44a5-8bb3-6851e0f8b02e
Perhaps an artificial idiot can think better than you but it does >>>>>>>> not think better than most participants of these discussions.
Yet you cannot point out any actual error.
There is no error in your above quoted words.
What is not provable is not analytic truth.
I totally agree. Not only must it be provable it must
be provable semantically not merely syntactically.
In order to prove anything a proof must be syntactically correct.
Then the conclusion is semantically true if the premises are.
Not exactly. Some of logic is wrong.
There is no example where ordinary logic derives a false conclusion from >>>> true premises. Other logics may contain mistakes so they should not be >>>> used unless proven valid.
The one that I have in mind derives a true conclusion
from false premises.
True conclusion from false premeises is fairly common. But that is not
relevant.
It proves that logic is fundamentally incorrect on this point.
Logic must be a sequence of truth preserving operations or it is wrong.
On 7/8/2025 2:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-07-07 13:57:28 +0000, olcott said:
On 7/7/2025 3:20 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-07-06 14:48:45 +0000, olcott said:
On 7/6/2025 3:30 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-07-05 15:18:46 +0000, olcott said:
On 7/5/2025 4:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-07-04 20:16:34 +0000, olcott said:
https://claude.ai/share/48aab578-aec3-44a5-8bb3-6851e0f8b02e
Perhaps an artificial idiot can think better than you but it does >>>>>>>> not think better than most participants of these discussions.
Yet you cannot point out any actual error.
There is no error in your above quoted words.
What is not provable is not analytic truth.
I totally agree. Not only must it be provable it must
be provable semantically not merely syntactically.
In order to prove anything a proof must be syntactically correct.
Then the conclusion is semantically true if the premises are.
Not exactly. Some of logic is wrong.
There is no example where ordinary logic derives a false conclusion
from
true premises. Other logics may contain mistakes so they should not be >>>> used unless proven valid.
The one that I have in mind derives a true conclusion
from false premises.
True conclusion from false premeises is fairly common. But that is not
relevant.
It proves that logic is fundamentally incorrect on this point.
Logic must be a sequence of truth preserving operations or it is wrong.
A proof has no significance in a situation where one or more
of he premises is false.
On 7/9/2025 3:29 AM, Mikko wrote:Should only false conclusions be derivable from false premises?
On 2025-07-08 14:18:32 +0000, olcott said:
On 7/8/2025 2:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
True conclusion from false premeises is fairly common. But that isIt proves that logic is fundamentally incorrect on this point.
not relevant.
Logic must be a sequence of truth preserving operations or it is
wrong.
It is a truism the the POE violates the requirement of truth preserving operations. People that learn things by rote do not notice this.If you have contradictory premises, the (non-)truth of that is
On 7/9/2025 3:29 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-07-08 14:18:32 +0000, olcott said:
On 7/8/2025 2:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-07-07 13:57:28 +0000, olcott said:
On 7/7/2025 3:20 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-07-06 14:48:45 +0000, olcott said:
On 7/6/2025 3:30 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-07-05 15:18:46 +0000, olcott said:
On 7/5/2025 4:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-07-04 20:16:34 +0000, olcott said:Yet you cannot point out any actual error.
https://claude.ai/share/48aab578-aec3-44a5-8bb3-6851e0f8b02e >>>>>>>>>>Perhaps an artificial idiot can think better than you but it does >>>>>>>>>> not think better than most participants of these discussions. >>>>>>>>>
There is no error in your above quoted words.
What is not provable is not analytic truth.
I totally agree. Not only must it be provable it must
be provable semantically not merely syntactically.
In order to prove anything a proof must be syntactically correct. >>>>>>>> Then the conclusion is semantically true if the premises are.
Not exactly. Some of logic is wrong.
There is no example where ordinary logic derives a false conclusion from >>>>>> true premises. Other logics may contain mistakes so they should not be >>>>>> used unless proven valid.
The one that I have in mind derives a true conclusion
from false premises.
True conclusion from false premeises is fairly common. But that is not >>>> relevant.
It proves that logic is fundamentally incorrect on this point.
Logic must be a sequence of truth preserving operations or it is wrong.
Your straw man logic is incorrect. Whenever ordinary logic has been
compared to reality it is found to be correct.
Logic belongs to analytical truth, reality belongs to
empirical truth. They are not the same.
It is a truism the the POE violates the requirement of
truth preserving operations. People that learn things by
rote do not notice this.
On 7/9/2025 9:04 AM, joes wrote:
Am Wed, 09 Jul 2025 07:31:59 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 7/9/2025 3:29 AM, Mikko wrote:Should only false conclusions be derivable from false premises?
On 2025-07-08 14:18:32 +0000, olcott said:
On 7/8/2025 2:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
True conclusion from false premeises is fairly common. But that is >>>>>> not relevant.It proves that logic is fundamentally incorrect on this point.
Logic must be a sequence of truth preserving operations or it is
wrong.
False premises must be immediately rejected.
On 7/9/2025 9:04 AM, joes wrote:
Am Wed, 09 Jul 2025 07:31:59 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 7/9/2025 3:29 AM, Mikko wrote:Should only false conclusions be derivable from false premises?
On 2025-07-08 14:18:32 +0000, olcott said:
On 7/8/2025 2:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
True conclusion from false premeises is fairly common. But that is >>>>>> not relevant.It proves that logic is fundamentally incorrect on this point.
Logic must be a sequence of truth preserving operations or it is
wrong.
False premises must be immediately rejected.
This is easy to do when semantic meaning is
fully integrated into the formal language.
That is the correct way to do it.It is a truism the the POE violates the requirement of truth preservingIf you have contradictory premises, the (non-)truth of that is
operations. People that learn things by rote do not notice this.
preserved...
*Here is the psychotic break from that*
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
On 7/10/2025 9:38 AM, joes wrote:
Am Thu, 10 Jul 2025 09:09:00 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 7/10/2025 4:02 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-07-09 12:31:59 +0000, olcott said:
It is a truism the the POE violates the requirement of truthThe requirement of truth preserving operations only applies to proofs.
preserving operations. People that learn things by rote do not notice >>>>> this.
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.
Correct. Since the moon is not, in fact, made of green cheese, this does
not allow you deduce that Trump is christ (even if he were). It is a bit
unintuitive, granted.
As a demonstration of the principle, consider two contradictory statements—"All lemons are yellow" and "Not all lemons are yellow"—and suppose that both are true. If that is the case, anything can be proven, e.g., the assertion that "unicorns exist", by using the following
argument: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
This the Moon exists and the Moon does not exist "proves"
that Donald Trump is the Christ.
What it really proves is the modern symbolic logic is all F-cked up.
*My replacement to formal systems corrects this error*
On 7/10/2025 4:02 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-07-09 12:31:59 +0000, olcott said:
On 7/9/2025 3:29 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-07-08 14:18:32 +0000, olcott said:
On 7/8/2025 2:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-07-07 13:57:28 +0000, olcott said:
On 7/7/2025 3:20 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-07-06 14:48:45 +0000, olcott said:
On 7/6/2025 3:30 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-07-05 15:18:46 +0000, olcott said:Not exactly. Some of logic is wrong.
On 7/5/2025 4:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-07-04 20:16:34 +0000, olcott said:Yet you cannot point out any actual error.
https://claude.ai/share/48aab578-aec3-44a5-8bb3-6851e0f8b02e >>>>>>>>>>>>Perhaps an artificial idiot can think better than you but it >>>>>>>>>>>> does
not think better than most participants of these discussions. >>>>>>>>>>>
There is no error in your above quoted words.
What is not provable is not analytic truth.
I totally agree. Not only must it be provable it must
be provable semantically not merely syntactically.
In order to prove anything a proof must be syntactically correct. >>>>>>>>>> Then the conclusion is semantically true if the premises are. >>>>>>>>>
There is no example where ordinary logic derives a false
conclusion from
true premises. Other logics may contain mistakes so they should >>>>>>>> not be
used unless proven valid.
The one that I have in mind derives a true conclusion
from false premises.
True conclusion from false premeises is fairly common. But that is >>>>>> not
relevant.
It proves that logic is fundamentally incorrect on this point.
Logic must be a sequence of truth preserving operations or it is
wrong.
Your straw man logic is incorrect. Whenever ordinary logic has been
compared to reality it is found to be correct.
Logic belongs to analytical truth, reality belongs to
empirical truth. They are not the same.
Nevertheless, ordinary logic is empirially valid.
Not at all. All of logic is a mental abstraction
with no physical existence.
It is a truism the the POE violates the requirement of
truth preserving operations. People that learn things by
rote do not notice this.
The requirement of truth preserving operations only applies to proofs.
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.
In that context the requirement can be further restricted. A small
set of inference rules, even a singlet, is sufficient if you have s
sufficiently rich set of axiom rules.
The POE has always been completely false.
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.
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
On 7/10/2025 4:05 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-07-09 14:16:44 +0000, olcott said:
On 7/9/2025 9:04 AM, joes wrote:
Am Wed, 09 Jul 2025 07:31:59 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 7/9/2025 3:29 AM, Mikko wrote:Should only false conclusions be derivable from false premises?
On 2025-07-08 14:18:32 +0000, olcott said:
On 7/8/2025 2:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
True conclusion from false premeises is fairly common. But that is >>>>>>>> not relevant.It proves that logic is fundamentally incorrect on this point.
Logic must be a sequence of truth preserving operations or it is >>>>>>> wrong.
False premises must be immediately rejected.
Often one must work with sentences that are not known to be true but
not known to be false, either.
Then contradiction proves falsehood.
On 7/10/2025 4:02 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-07-09 12:31:59 +0000, olcott said:
On 7/9/2025 3:29 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-07-08 14:18:32 +0000, olcott said:
On 7/8/2025 2:41 AM, Mikko wrote:Your straw man logic is incorrect. Whenever ordinary logic has been
On 2025-07-07 13:57:28 +0000, olcott said:
On 7/7/2025 3:20 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-07-06 14:48:45 +0000, olcott said:
On 7/6/2025 3:30 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-07-05 15:18:46 +0000, olcott said:Not exactly. Some of logic is wrong.
On 7/5/2025 4:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-07-04 20:16:34 +0000, olcott said:Yet you cannot point out any actual error.
https://claude.ai/share/48aab578-aec3-44a5-8bb3-6851e0f8b02e >>>>>>>>>>>>Perhaps an artificial idiot can think better than you but it does >>>>>>>>>>>> not think better than most participants of these discussions. >>>>>>>>>>>
There is no error in your above quoted words.
What is not provable is not analytic truth.
I totally agree. Not only must it be provable it must
be provable semantically not merely syntactically.
In order to prove anything a proof must be syntactically correct. >>>>>>>>>> Then the conclusion is semantically true if the premises are. >>>>>>>>>
There is no example where ordinary logic derives a false conclusion from
true premises. Other logics may contain mistakes so they should not be >>>>>>>> used unless proven valid.
The one that I have in mind derives a true conclusion
from false premises.
True conclusion from false premeises is fairly common. But that is not >>>>>> relevant.
It proves that logic is fundamentally incorrect on this point.
Logic must be a sequence of truth preserving operations or it is wrong. >>>>
compared to reality it is found to be correct.
Logic belongs to analytical truth, reality belongs to
empirical truth. They are not the same.
Nevertheless, ordinary logic is empirially valid.
Not at all. All of logic is a mental abstraction
with no physical existence.
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
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
∀x (⊥ ⊢ x). When we look at that in terms of the
syllogism it is horribly incorrect.
That logic does not require semantic relevance is
its key mistake.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relevance_logic
Fixes some aspects of the problem.
Whether Y is true is a completely independent question.
But Olcott seems to think that the truth of ((X & ~X) -> Y) somehow
proves that Y is true. That's simply not how logic works.
You are addressing this different issue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradoxes_of_material_implication
I raise this point purely as a clarification. I'm well aware that this
will have no impact on Olcott's (mis)understanding of logic.
André
On 7/11/2025 3:43 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-07-10 14:09:55 +0000, olcott said:*This Wikipedia quote*
On 7/10/2025 4:05 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-07-09 14:16:44 +0000, olcott said:Then contradiction proves falsehood.
On 7/9/2025 9:04 AM, joes wrote:
Am Wed, 09 Jul 2025 07:31:59 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 7/9/2025 3:29 AM, Mikko wrote:Should only false conclusions be derivable from false premises?
On 2025-07-08 14:18:32 +0000, olcott said:
On 7/8/2025 2:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
True conclusion from false premeises is fairly common. But that >>>>>>>>>> is not relevant.It proves that logic is fundamentally incorrect on this point. >>>>>>>>> Logic must be a sequence of truth preserving operations or it is >>>>>>>>> wrong.
False premises must be immediately rejected.
Often one must work with sentences that are not known to be true but
not known to be false, either.
That's right: if a contradiction is inferred then at least one of the
preimises is false. But that does not tell which premise is false.
the principle of explosion is the law according to which *any
statement can be proven from a contradiction*
Here is the exact meaning of:
*any statement can be proven from a contradiction*
∀x (⊥ ⊢ x).
Is proven to be incorrect in that it diverges from truth preserving operations.
On 7/11/2025 3:43 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-07-10 14:09:55 +0000, olcott said:
On 7/10/2025 4:05 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-07-09 14:16:44 +0000, olcott said:
On 7/9/2025 9:04 AM, joes wrote:
Am Wed, 09 Jul 2025 07:31:59 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 7/9/2025 3:29 AM, Mikko wrote:Should only false conclusions be derivable from false premises?
On 2025-07-08 14:18:32 +0000, olcott said:
On 7/8/2025 2:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
True conclusion from false premeises is fairly common. But >>>>>>>>>> that isIt proves that logic is fundamentally incorrect on this point. >>>>>>>>> Logic must be a sequence of truth preserving operations or it is >>>>>>>>> wrong.
not relevant.
False premises must be immediately rejected.
Often one must work with sentences that are not known to be true but
not known to be false, either.
Then contradiction proves falsehood.
That's right: if a contradiction is inferred then at least one of the
preimises is false. But that does not tell which premise is false.
*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).
Is proven to be incorrect in that it diverges
from truth preserving operations.
On 7/11/2025 10:50 AM, joes wrote:
Am Fri, 11 Jul 2025 10:30:35 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 7/11/2025 3:43 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-07-10 14:09:55 +0000, olcott said:*This Wikipedia quote*
On 7/10/2025 4:05 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-07-09 14:16:44 +0000, olcott said:Then contradiction proves falsehood.
On 7/9/2025 9:04 AM, joes wrote:
Am Wed, 09 Jul 2025 07:31:59 -0500 schrieb olcott:False premises must be immediately rejected.
On 7/9/2025 3:29 AM, Mikko wrote:Should only false conclusions be derivable from false premises? >>>>>>>
On 2025-07-08 14:18:32 +0000, olcott said:
On 7/8/2025 2:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
True conclusion from false premeises is fairly common. But that >>>>>>>>>>>> is not relevant.It proves that logic is fundamentally incorrect on this point. >>>>>>>>>>> Logic must be a sequence of truth preserving operations or it is >>>>>>>>>>> wrong.
Often one must work with sentences that are not known to be true but >>>>>> not known to be false, either.
That's right: if a contradiction is inferred then at least one of the
preimises is false. But that does not tell which premise is false.
> the principle of explosion is the law according to which *any >>> > statement can be proven from a contradiction*
Here is the exact meaning of:
*any statement can be proven from a contradiction*
∀x (⊥ ⊢ x).
Is proven to be incorrect in that it diverges from truth preserving
operations.
How so? If A and ~A are both true, B also is.
It is flat out nuts to assume that "A and ~A are both true".
One cannot simply ignore the law of non-contradiction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction
On 7/11/2025 10:50 AM, joes wrote:Indeed, because you can derive anything from it.
Am Fri, 11 Jul 2025 10:30:35 -0500 schrieb olcott:It is flat out nuts to assume that "A and ~A are both true".
On 7/11/2025 3:43 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-07-10 14:09:55 +0000, olcott said:*This Wikipedia quote*
On 7/10/2025 4:05 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-07-09 14:16:44 +0000, olcott said:Then contradiction proves falsehood.
On 7/9/2025 9:04 AM, joes wrote:
Am Wed, 09 Jul 2025 07:31:59 -0500 schrieb olcott:False premises must be immediately rejected.
On 7/9/2025 3:29 AM, Mikko wrote:Should only false conclusions be derivable from false premises? >>>>>>>
On 2025-07-08 14:18:32 +0000, olcott said:
On 7/8/2025 2:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
True conclusion from false premeises is fairly common. But >>>>>>>>>>>> that is not relevant.It proves that logic is fundamentally incorrect on this point. >>>>>>>>>>> Logic must be a sequence of truth preserving operations or it >>>>>>>>>>> is wrong.
Often one must work with sentences that are not known to be true
but not known to be false, either.
That's right: if a contradiction is inferred then at least one of the
preimises is false. But that does not tell which premise is false.
> the principle of explosion is the law according to which *any
> statement can be proven from a contradiction*
Here is the exact meaning of:
*any statement can be proven from a contradiction*
∀x (⊥ ⊢ x).
Is proven to be incorrect in that it diverges from truth preserving
operations.
How so? If A and ~A are both true, B also is.
One cannot simply ignore the law of non-contradiction.
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).
On 7/12/2025 5:54 AM, joes wrote:
Am Fri, 11 Jul 2025 15:52:05 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 7/11/2025 10:50 AM, joes wrote:Indeed, because you can derive anything from it.
Am Fri, 11 Jul 2025 10:30:35 -0500 schrieb olcott:It is flat out nuts to assume that "A and ~A are both true".
On 7/11/2025 3:43 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-07-10 14:09:55 +0000, olcott said:*This Wikipedia quote*
On 7/10/2025 4:05 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-07-09 14:16:44 +0000, olcott said:Then contradiction proves falsehood.
On 7/9/2025 9:04 AM, joes wrote:
Am Wed, 09 Jul 2025 07:31:59 -0500 schrieb olcott:False premises must be immediately rejected.
On 7/9/2025 3:29 AM, Mikko wrote:Should only false conclusions be derivable from false premises? >>>>>>>>>
On 2025-07-08 14:18:32 +0000, olcott said:
On 7/8/2025 2:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
True conclusion from false premeises is fairly common. But >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is not relevant.It proves that logic is fundamentally incorrect on this point. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Logic must be a sequence of truth preserving operations or it >>>>>>>>>>>>> is wrong.
Often one must work with sentences that are not known to be true >>>>>>>> but not known to be false, either.
That's right: if a contradiction is inferred then at least one of the >>>>>> preimises is false. But that does not tell which premise is false. >>>>>>
> the principle of explosion is the law according to which *any
> statement can be proven from a contradiction*
Here is the exact meaning of:
*any statement can be proven from a contradiction*
∀x (⊥ ⊢ x).
Is proven to be incorrect in that it diverges from truth preserving
operations.
How so? If A and ~A are both true, B also is.
One cannot simply ignore the law of non-contradiction.
The only this that can actually be semantically derived
from a contradiction is ⊥.
On 7/12/2025 6:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/11/25 1:12 AM, olcott wrote:André G. Isaak's paraphrase of this:
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:
"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).
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:André G. Isaak's paraphrase of this:
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:
"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
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:André G. Isaak's paraphrase of this:
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:
"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
So you agree that André had this wrong when he used
implies(→) instead of proves(⊢).
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
So you agree that André had this wrong when he used
implies(→) instead of proves(⊢).
No, The FACT that ((X & ~X) implies Y) is true is provable.
Yet is not an accurate paraphrase of: ∀x (⊥ ⊢ x)
so André was wrong in his paraphrase.
Now, it is also true that (X & ~X) is enough to PROVE any statement,
which is actually a stronger statement.
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)
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.
On 7/15/2025 6:45 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2025-07-15 17:35, olcott wrote:
You still make the same mistake with the implication operator.
That has always been the wrong operator for PROVES.
You're being an idiot. The principle of explosion can be stated either
in terms of implication or proof. I prefer implication. I'm not
mistaking one symbol for another. I'm saying exactly what I intend to
say.
André
Yet implication is not even truth preserving.
On 7/15/2025 7:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2025-07-15 17:53, olcott wrote:
On 7/15/2025 6:45 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2025-07-15 17:35, olcott wrote:
You still make the same mistake with the implication operator.
That has always been the wrong operator for PROVES.
You're being an idiot. The principle of explosion can be stated
either in terms of implication or proof. I prefer implication. I'm
not mistaking one symbol for another. I'm saying exactly what I
intend to say.
André
Yet implication is not even truth preserving.
You seem to be using some private definition of 'truth preserving'.
Did you get that one from claude.ai as well?
André
the characteristic of an argument where,
if the premises are true, the conclusion
must also be true.
When the antecedent is false the consequent
can be true with the "→" operator.
On 7/15/2025 6:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/14/25 11:03 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:André G. Isaak's paraphrase of this:
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:
"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
So you agree that André had this wrong when he used
implies(→) instead of proves(⊢).
No, The FACT that ((X & ~X) implies Y) is true is provable.
Yet is not an accurate paraphrase of: ∀x (⊥ ⊢ x)
so André was wrong in his paraphrase.
Now, it is also true that (X & ~X) is enough to PROVE any statement,
which is actually a stronger statement.
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)
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:André G. Isaak's paraphrase of this:
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:
"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.
Thus assuming that: the proposition and its
negation are both be simultaneously true is
a psychotic break from reality.
On 7/15/2025 7:47 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2025-07-15 18:39, olcott wrote:
On 7/15/2025 7:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2025-07-15 17:53, olcott wrote:
On 7/15/2025 6:45 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2025-07-15 17:35, olcott wrote:
You still make the same mistake with the implication operator.
That has always been the wrong operator for PROVES.
You're being an idiot. The principle of explosion can be stated
either in terms of implication or proof. I prefer implication. I'm >>>>>> not mistaking one symbol for another. I'm saying exactly what I
intend to say.
André
Yet implication is not even truth preserving.
You seem to be using some private definition of 'truth preserving'.
Did you get that one from claude.ai as well?
André
the characteristic of an argument where,
if the premises are true, the conclusion
must also be true.
When the antecedent is false the consequent
can be true with the "→" operator.
And how would that make it non-truth preserving?
If you start with falsity end end up with truth then
the operation was not truth preserving.
If there are tens of thousands of textbooks that
disagree then they are necessarily incorrect when
we go by the compositional meaning of the terms
of "truth" and "preserving". To make a term of the
art meaning that disagrees with the compositional
meaning has always been dishonest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_function#Algebraic_properties
On 7/15/2025 8:17 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
The is perfectly compositional. If we start with things that are true,
then the result is true. It says nothing about what we get when we
start with things that are false.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_table#Logical_implication
p=false q=false then p → q is true.
On 7/15/2025 8:44 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2025-07-15 19:37, olcott wrote:
On 7/15/2025 8:17 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
The is perfectly compositional. If we start with things that are
true, then the result is true. It says nothing about what we get
when we start with things that are false.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_table#Logical_implication
p=false q=false then p → q is true.
What does that have to do with anything? That demonstrates that
material implication is not falsehood preserving. It says nothing
about whether it is truth preserving.
Falsehood is an aspect of truth.
On 7/15/2025 9:01 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2025-07-15 19:55, olcott wrote:
On 7/15/2025 8:44 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2025-07-15 19:37, olcott wrote:
On 7/15/2025 8:17 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
The is perfectly compositional. If we start with things that are
true, then the result is true. It says nothing about what we get
when we start with things that are false.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_table#Logical_implication
p=false q=false then p → q is true.
What does that have to do with anything? That demonstrates that
material implication is not falsehood preserving. It says nothing
about whether it is truth preserving.
Falsehood is an aspect of truth.
Falshood-preserving and truth-preserving are two different properties.
An operator can be one without being the other (and I gave you a link
to their definitions). All you're demonstrating is that you have
absolutely no clue what the terms you are using mean, which tends to
invalidate everything you say.
André
You still didn't answer the question about why
the law of non-contradiction doesn't over-rule
the POE.
On 2025-07-15 20:22, olcott wrote:
As a demonstration of the principle, consider two contradictory
statements—"All lemons are yellow" and "Not all lemons are yellow"—
*and suppose that both are true*
Then we have shown that you just had a psychotic break from reality.
No, it simply means we have posited a falsehood. Logic deals with false statements as much as it deals with true statements.
(and note that the above two sentences are not contradictory since they
are both true in a universe which does not contain any lemons. Your
scope of negation is off).
On 7/15/2025 9:18 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2025-07-15 20:13, olcott wrote:
On 7/15/2025 9:01 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2025-07-15 19:55, olcott wrote:
On 7/15/2025 8:44 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2025-07-15 19:37, olcott wrote:
On 7/15/2025 8:17 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
The is perfectly compositional. If we start with things that are >>>>>>>> true, then the result is true. It says nothing about what we get >>>>>>>> when we start with things that are false.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_table#Logical_implication
p=false q=false then p → q is true.
What does that have to do with anything? That demonstrates that
material implication is not falsehood preserving. It says nothing
about whether it is truth preserving.
Falsehood is an aspect of truth.
Falshood-preserving and truth-preserving are two different
properties. An operator can be one without being the other (and I
gave you a link to their definitions). All you're demonstrating is
that you have absolutely no clue what the terms you are using mean,
which tends to invalidate everything you say.
André
You still didn't answer the question about why
the law of non-contradiction doesn't over-rule
the POE.
It doesn't override it. The law of non-contradiction states that A
cannot be both true and false.
As a demonstration of the principle, consider two contradictory statements—"All lemons are yellow" and "Not all lemons are yellow"—
*and suppose that both are true*
Then we have shown that you just had a psychotic break from reality.
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:André G. Isaak's paraphrase of this:
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:
"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.
On 7/15/2025 5:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/15/25 8:40 AM, olcott wrote:
On 7/15/2025 6:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/14/25 11:03 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:André G. Isaak's paraphrase of this:
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:
"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
So you agree that André had this wrong when he used
implies(→) instead of proves(⊢).
No, The FACT that ((X & ~X) implies Y) is true is provable.
Yet is not an accurate paraphrase of: ∀x (⊥ ⊢ x)
so André was wrong in his paraphrase.
But ∀x (⊥ ⊢ x) isn't a correct statement of the Principle of Explosion.
Because it doesn't say a Falsestate proves all, it says that a
contradiction proves all.
Here's why falsum is important in logic
Represents contradiction: Falsum is equivalent to a contradiction like P
∧ ¬P (a statement and its negation simultaneously being true), which is always false. (Always except for nitwits that accept POE's disagreement
with the law of non-contradiction).
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.
On 7/16/2025 9:44 AM, Andy Walker wrote:
On 15/07/2025 22:34, André G. Isaak wrote [to PO]:
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.
In my childhood, people used to say "If [very unlikely event],
I'm a Dutchman". I haven't heard it recently, perhaps because it's
somewhat non-PC, but it suggests that the general population knows
perfectly well that "If false then X" is true for any "X", whether
"X" be true or false, and therefore carries no implication about the
truth or falsity of "X". In similar vein, PO's example about the Moon
and the current US President forms a true statement, including the
semantics thereof, regardless of the properties of Mr Trump.
The nearest to a common public misunderstanding is that many
assume that "If it rains, I shall carry an umbrella" implies that "If
it does not rain, I shall not carry an umbrella", which of course does
not follow. Normal people accept the distinction if it is pointed out,
though they may well think you're being over-pedantic.
IOW, the general public accepts "basic logic" well enough to
follow as much as is needed for the standard HP proof; if they don't
understand the proof, it's for reasons other than a failure of logic.
I don't expect PO to change his mind, which makes this, like
almost all threads here for well over a decade, a fruitless debate.
But feel free to waste your time ....
If we assume that (A ∧ ¬A) is true we violate
the law of non-contradiction thus are proven to
be incorrect before we even begin the POE.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 156:39:16 |
| Calls: | 10,384 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 14,056 |
| Messages: | 6,416,471 |