On 8/22/2025 6:31 PM, wij wrote:
On Fri, 2025-08-22 at 18:22 -0500, olcott wrote:
On 8/22/2025 6:06 PM, wij wrote:
On Fri, 2025-08-22 at 06:33 +0800, wij wrote:
On Thu, 2025-08-21 at 16:29 -0500, olcott wrote:
On 8/21/2025 4:08 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-08-21, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 8/21/2025 2:30 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
If you ask questions using the same words and identifiers and >>>>>>>>> what that are used in your rhetoric, you will just get token >>>>>>>>> predictions across that text space consisting of your own stuff. >>>>>>>>>
It is a matter of easily verified fact that once
one knows that the x86utm operating system provides
the infrastructure so that HHH can simulate an
instance of itself simulating an instance of DD
when its own DD calls HHH(DD) then
It is a matter of easily verified fact that you are using the phrase >>>>>>> "instance of itself" to refer to a situation between two dissimilar >>>>>>> deciders which are implemented in the same C function HHH,
distinguishing themselves by different control flow paths in
response to
a mutating static variable.
This is not only a crime against computer science, but against
the English language, whose "itself" pronoun you are abusing.
The control paths are the same without the static data.
That DD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt is now
reported by an OOM error instead of HHH.
The five LLM systems are correct that HHH(DD)==0 is
correct even if HHH cannot see this itself.
Apparently you just learn by rote, you don't understand what
HHH(DD)==0 means.
Q: What is the value of proposition X&~X, why? True,False (or
Undecidable if
your answer is not True/False)
Failed, loser? Chicken out? That's OK, we can switch to others,
shall we?
Here is my best answer yet: (X ∧ ¬X) ⊨ ⊥
In logic, the symbol ⊨ is called the double turnstile.
It is often read as "entails", "models",
"is a semantic consequence of"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_turnstile
"Up tack" is the Unicode name for a symbol ⊥...
The truth value 'false', or a logical constant
denoting a proposition in logic that is always false.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_tack
Fine.
Q: What is the value of proposition X∧¬X? why? True,False (or
Undecidable if
your answer is not True/False)
Read and reread all of the above
10 million times if needed for you
to understand that I already answered
that question.
That you do not understand the meaning
of the symbols is no excuse because I
provided the definition of these symbols.
On 8/22/2025 6:31 PM, wij wrote:
On Fri, 2025-08-22 at 18:22 -0500, olcott wrote:
Here is my best answer yet: (X ∧ ¬X) ⊨ ⊥
In logic, the symbol ⊨ is called the double turnstile.
It is often read as "entails", "models",
"is a semantic consequence of"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_turnstile
"Up tack" is the Unicode name for a symbol ⊥...
The truth value 'false', or a logical constant
denoting a proposition in logic that is always false.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_tack
Fine.
Q: What is the value of proposition X∧¬X? why? True,False (or
Undecidable if
your answer is not True/False)
Read and reread all of the above
10 million times if needed for you
to understand that I already answered
that question.
That you do not understand the meaning
of the symbols is no excuse because I
provided the definition of these symbols.
On 8/22/2025 7:18 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2025-08-22 17:56, olcott wrote:
On 8/22/2025 6:31 PM, wij wrote:
On Fri, 2025-08-22 at 18:22 -0500, olcott wrote:
Here is my best answer yet: (X ∧ ¬X) ⊨ ⊥
In logic, the symbol ⊨ is called the double turnstile.
It is often read as "entails", "models",
"is a semantic consequence of"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_turnstile
"Up tack" is the Unicode name for a symbol ⊥...
The truth value 'false', or a logical constant
denoting a proposition in logic that is always false.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_tack
Fine.
Q: What is the value of proposition X∧¬X? why? True,False (or
Undecidable if
your answer is not True/False)
Read and reread all of the above
10 million times if needed for you
to understand that I already answered
that question.
That you do not understand the meaning
of the symbols is no excuse because I
provided the definition of these symbols.
I'm really not clear on what wij hopes to accomplish by pressing you
on this point, but just to clarify (X ∧ ¬X) ⊨ ⊥ isn't a value, it is a
formula (of the metalanguage). Values would either be true or false.
André
"Up tack" is the Unicode name for a symbol ⊥...
The truth value 'false', or a logical constant
denoting a proposition in logic that is always false. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_tack
On 8/22/2025 7:25 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2025-08-22 18:20, olcott wrote:
On 8/22/2025 7:18 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2025-08-22 17:56, olcott wrote:
On 8/22/2025 6:31 PM, wij wrote:
On Fri, 2025-08-22 at 18:22 -0500, olcott wrote:
Here is my best answer yet: (X ∧ ¬X) ⊨ ⊥
In logic, the symbol ⊨ is called the double turnstile.
It is often read as "entails", "models",
"is a semantic consequence of"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_turnstile
"Up tack" is the Unicode name for a symbol ⊥...
The truth value 'false', or a logical constant
denoting a proposition in logic that is always false.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_tack
Fine.
Q: What is the value of proposition X∧¬X? why? True,False (or
Undecidable if
your answer is not True/False)
Read and reread all of the above
10 million times if needed for you
to understand that I already answered
that question.
That you do not understand the meaning
of the symbols is no excuse because I
provided the definition of these symbols.
I'm really not clear on what wij hopes to accomplish by pressing you
on this point, but just to clarify (X ∧ ¬X) ⊨ ⊥ isn't a value, it is
a formula (of the metalanguage). Values would either be true or false. >>>>
André
"Up tack" is the Unicode name for a symbol ⊥...
The truth value 'false', or a logical constant
denoting a proposition in logic that is always false.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_tack
Yes, I know that. It's really quite silly of you to keep giving
definitions and quoting wikipedia regarding basic symbols.
wij couldn't understand any of it even
after everything was defined.
the point is that ⊨ doesn't mean = so your formula isn't making a
claim about the truth value of (X ∧ ¬X). It's making a claim about an
entailment.
A contradiction semantically entails falsum.
The following entailment also holds:
(X ∧ ¬X) ⊨ ⊤
That is not true even if every being in the universe agrees.
Logic diverges from correct reasoning shortly after the
syllogism when semantics was divorced from rules of inference.
On 8/22/2025 7:58 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2025-08-22 18:43, olcott wrote:
On 8/22/2025 7:25 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2025-08-22 18:20, olcott wrote:
On 8/22/2025 7:18 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2025-08-22 17:56, olcott wrote:
On 8/22/2025 6:31 PM, wij wrote:
On Fri, 2025-08-22 at 18:22 -0500, olcott wrote:
Here is my best answer yet: (X ∧ ¬X) ⊨ ⊥
In logic, the symbol ⊨ is called the double turnstile.
It is often read as "entails", "models",
"is a semantic consequence of"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_turnstile
"Up tack" is the Unicode name for a symbol ⊥...
The truth value 'false', or a logical constant
denoting a proposition in logic that is always false.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_tack
Fine.
Q: What is the value of proposition X∧¬X? why? True,False (or >>>>>>>> Undecidable if
your answer is not True/False)
Read and reread all of the above
10 million times if needed for you
to understand that I already answered
that question.
That you do not understand the meaning
of the symbols is no excuse because I
provided the definition of these symbols.
I'm really not clear on what wij hopes to accomplish by pressing
you on this point, but just to clarify (X ∧ ¬X) ⊨ ⊥ isn't a value,
it is a formula (of the metalanguage). Values would either be true >>>>>> or false.
André
"Up tack" is the Unicode name for a symbol ⊥...
The truth value 'false', or a logical constant
denoting a proposition in logic that is always false.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_tack
Yes, I know that. It's really quite silly of you to keep giving
definitions and quoting wikipedia regarding basic symbols.
wij couldn't understand any of it even
after everything was defined.
I see no evidence that he didn't understand.
the point is that ⊨ doesn't mean = so your formula isn't making a
claim about the truth value of (X ∧ ¬X). It's making a claim about
an entailment.
A contradiction semantically entails falsum.
Yes, that may be the case, but it isn't an answer to the question
"what is the value of (X ∧ ¬X). My only reason for responding to this
thread was to point out why wij kept reasking the question in response
to your reply. It wasn't because he didn't understand your reply; it's
because your reply wasn't an answer to the question asked.
André
"what is the value of (X ∧ ¬X)". It is proven to be falsum
thus the principle of explosion is merely a psychotic break
from reality.
On 8/22/2025 8:11 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
Do you understand the difference between f (false, a truth value), and
⊥ (falsum) or between t (true, a truth value) and ⊤ (verum)? Or are
you just randomly throwing out symbols you have run across on
wikipedia pages?
André
Unless Wikipedia is a liar:
a logical constant denoting a proposition in logic that is always false.
On 8/22/2025 8:27 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2025-08-22 19:15, olcott wrote:
On 8/22/2025 8:11 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
Do you understand the difference between f (false, a truth value),
and ⊥ (falsum) or between t (true, a truth value) and ⊤ (verum)? Or >>>> are you just randomly throwing out symbols you have run across on
wikipedia pages?
André
Unless Wikipedia is a liar:
a logical constant denoting a proposition in logic that is always false.
Which means it is not a truth value, it is a stand in for a
proposition, so it isn't an answer to the question "what is the value
of (X ∧ ¬X)".
It is a proposition that is always false.
It is a psychosis that that I don't share
that the principle of explosion is valid.
We must kill off any inference from a contradiction
to kill off the POE. ⊥ seems to do that.
And you should realize at some point that Wikipedia isn't the
definitive word on specialized topics. It is an *encyclopaedia*.
Encyclopaedias provide a very basic, often oversimplified,
introduction to a topic for the non-specialist. If you actually want
to learn logic you need to take a course on logic or read a textbook
on logic (in your case I would recommend the former). Wikipedia isn't
a substitute.
On 8/22/2025 8:49 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2025-08-22 19:44, olcott wrote:
On 8/22/2025 8:27 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2025-08-22 19:15, olcott wrote:
On 8/22/2025 8:11 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
Do you understand the difference between f (false, a truth value), >>>>>> and ⊥ (falsum) or between t (true, a truth value) and ⊤ (verum)? >>>>>> Or are you just randomly throwing out symbols you have run across
on wikipedia pages?
André
Unless Wikipedia is a liar:
a logical constant denoting a proposition in logic that is always
false.
Which means it is not a truth value, it is a stand in for a
proposition, so it isn't an answer to the question "what is the
value of (X ∧ ¬X)".
It is a proposition that is always false.
It is a psychosis that that I don't share
that the principle of explosion is valid.
Asking the question "what is the value of (X ∧ ¬X)" has nothing to do >> with the principle of explosion. It's a simple request for a truth
value, and its truth value is simply 'false' (why you couldn't have
just said this is beyond me). 'false' and 'falsum' aren't
interchangeable.
We must kill off any inference from a contradiction
to kill off the POE. ⊥ seems to do that.
That's a non-sequitur. ⊥ is simply a symbol. It can't 'kill off'
anything.
André
When we stipulate the convention that: (X ∧ ¬X) ⊨ ⊥
then we have killed the Principle of Explosion.
On 8/22/2025 6:56 PM, wij wrote:
On Fri, 2025-08-22 at 18:46 -0500, olcott wrote:
On 8/22/2025 6:31 PM, wij wrote:
On Fri, 2025-08-22 at 18:22 -0500, olcott wrote:
On 8/22/2025 6:06 PM, wij wrote:
On Fri, 2025-08-22 at 06:33 +0800, wij wrote:
On Thu, 2025-08-21 at 16:29 -0500, olcott wrote:
On 8/21/2025 4:08 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-08-21, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:The control paths are the same without the static data.
On 8/21/2025 2:30 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
If you ask questions using the same words and identifiers and >>>>>>>>>>> what that are used in your rhetoric, you will just get token >>>>>>>>>>> predictions across that text space consisting of your own stuff. >>>>>>>>>>>
It is a matter of easily verified fact that once
one knows that the x86utm operating system provides
the infrastructure so that HHH can simulate an
instance of itself simulating an instance of DD
when its own DD calls HHH(DD) then
It is a matter of easily verified fact that you are using the >>>>>>>>> phrase
"instance of itself" to refer to a situation between two
dissimilar
deciders which are implemented in the same C function HHH,
distinguishing themselves by different control flow paths in >>>>>>>>> response to
a mutating static variable.
This is not only a crime against computer science, but against >>>>>>>>> the English language, whose "itself" pronoun you are abusing. >>>>>>>>
That DD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt is now
reported by an OOM error instead of HHH.
The five LLM systems are correct that HHH(DD)==0 is
correct even if HHH cannot see this itself.
Apparently you just learn by rote, you don't understand what
HHH(DD)==0 means.
Q: What is the value of proposition X&~X, why? True,False (or
Undecidable if
your answer is not True/False)
Failed, loser? Chicken out? That's OK, we can switch to others,
shall we?
Here is my best answer yet: (X ∧ ¬X) ⊨ ⊥
In logic, the symbol ⊨ is called the double turnstile.
It is often read as "entails", "models",
"is a semantic consequence of"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_turnstile
"Up tack" is the Unicode name for a symbol ⊥...
The truth value 'false', or a logical constant
denoting a proposition in logic that is always false.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_tack
Fine.
Q: What is the value of proposition X∧¬X? why? True,False (or
Undecidable if
your answer is not True/False)
Read and reread all of the above
10 million times if needed for you
to understand that I already answered
that question.
That would indicate you don't understand English "the value of
proposition X∧¬X"
That you do not understand the meaning
of the symbols is no excuse because I
provided the definition of these symbols.
I think it is you don't understand what the symbols mean. But I can
make it even more
elementary to suit your level.
What does X∧¬X mean? What is X, what is ∧, what is ¬ ?
"the value of proposition X∧¬X"
AKA (X ∧ ¬X) ⊨ (AKA has a value of) ⊥ (AKA Falsum)
On 8/22/2025 8:49 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2025-08-22 19:44, olcott wrote:
On 8/22/2025 8:27 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2025-08-22 19:15, olcott wrote:
On 8/22/2025 8:11 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
Do you understand the difference between f (false, a truth value), >>>>>> and ⊥ (falsum) or between t (true, a truth value) and ⊤ (verum)? >>>>>> Or are you just randomly throwing out symbols you have run across
on wikipedia pages?
André
Unless Wikipedia is a liar:
a logical constant denoting a proposition in logic that is always
false.
Which means it is not a truth value, it is a stand in for a
proposition, so it isn't an answer to the question "what is the
value of (X ∧ ¬X)".
It is a proposition that is always false.
It is a psychosis that that I don't share
that the principle of explosion is valid.
Asking the question "what is the value of (X ∧ ¬X)" has nothing to do >> with the principle of explosion. It's a simple request for a truth
value, and its truth value is simply 'false' (why you couldn't have
just said this is beyond me). 'false' and 'falsum' aren't
interchangeable.
We must kill off any inference from a contradiction
to kill off the POE. ⊥ seems to do that.
That's a non-sequitur. ⊥ is simply a symbol. It can't 'kill off'
anything.
André
When we stipulate the convention that: (X ∧ ¬X) ⊨ ⊥
then we have killed the Principle of Explosion.
On 8/22/2025 7:53 PM, wij wrote:
On Sat, 2025-08-23 at 08:38 +0800, wij wrote:
On Sat, 2025-08-23 at 08:19 +0800, wij wrote:
On Fri, 2025-08-22 at 19:06 -0500, olcott wrote:
On 8/22/2025 6:56 PM, wij wrote:
On Fri, 2025-08-22 at 18:46 -0500, olcott wrote:
On 8/22/2025 6:31 PM, wij wrote:
On Fri, 2025-08-22 at 18:22 -0500, olcott wrote:
On 8/22/2025 6:06 PM, wij wrote:
On Fri, 2025-08-22 at 06:33 +0800, wij wrote:
On Thu, 2025-08-21 at 16:29 -0500, olcott wrote:
On 8/21/2025 4:08 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-08-21, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/21/2025 2:30 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:The control paths are the same without the static data. >>>>>>>>>>>> That DD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt is now >>>>>>>>>>>> reported by an OOM error instead of HHH.
If you ask questions using the same words and identifiers >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
what that are used in your rhetoric, you will just get token >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> predictions across that text space consisting of your own >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff.
It is a matter of easily verified fact that once
one knows that the x86utm operating system provides >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the infrastructure so that HHH can simulate an
instance of itself simulating an instance of DD
when its own DD calls HHH(DD) then
It is a matter of easily verified fact that you are using >>>>>>>>>>>>> the phrase
"instance of itself" to refer to a situation between two >>>>>>>>>>>>> dissimilar
deciders which are implemented in the same C function HHH, >>>>>>>>>>>>> distinguishing themselves by different control flow paths >>>>>>>>>>>>> in response to
a mutating static variable.
This is not only a crime against computer science, but against >>>>>>>>>>>>> the English language, whose "itself" pronoun you are abusing. >>>>>>>>>>>>
The five LLM systems are correct that HHH(DD)==0 is
correct even if HHH cannot see this itself.
Apparently you just learn by rote, you don't understand what >>>>>>>>>>> HHH(DD)==0 means.
Q: What is the value of proposition X&~X, why? True,False (or >>>>>>>>>>> Undecidable if
your answer is not True/False)
Failed, loser? Chicken out? That's OK, we can switch to
others, shall we?
Here is my best answer yet: (X ∧ ¬X) ⊨ ⊥
In logic, the symbol ⊨ is called the double turnstile.
It is often read as "entails", "models",
"is a semantic consequence of"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_turnstile
"Up tack" is the Unicode name for a symbol ⊥...
The truth value 'false', or a logical constant
denoting a proposition in logic that is always false.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_tack
Fine.
Q: What is the value of proposition X∧¬X? why? True,False (or >>>>>>>> Undecidable if
your answer is not True/False)
Read and reread all of the above
10 million times if needed for you
to understand that I already answered
that question.
That would indicate you don't understand English "the value of
proposition X∧¬X"
That you do not understand the meaning
of the symbols is no excuse because I
provided the definition of these symbols.
I think it is you don't understand what the symbols mean. But I
can make it even more
elementary to suit your level.
What does X∧¬X mean? What is X, what is ∧, what is ¬ ?
"the value of proposition X∧¬X"
AKA (X ∧ ¬X) ⊨ (AKA has a value of) ⊥ (AKA Falsum)
I think you just like to use POO terms (so you can reinterpret it. A
sign of dishonest and
cheating. But fine, understandable).
Then, what is 'X'?
Can X be a substitue of "HHH(D) does not reach its 'ret' instruction"?
What! You don't know?
Shall we conclude: olcott does not know basic logic? (I mean what
logic mean, not 'form')
You have proven that you do not know
the symbols of logic even when they
are explained to you.
On 8/22/2025 8:15 PM, wij wrote:
On Fri, 2025-08-22 at 19:58 -0500, olcott wrote:
On 8/22/2025 7:53 PM, wij wrote:
On Sat, 2025-08-23 at 08:38 +0800, wij wrote:
On Sat, 2025-08-23 at 08:19 +0800, wij wrote:
On Fri, 2025-08-22 at 19:06 -0500, olcott wrote:
On 8/22/2025 6:56 PM, wij wrote:
On Fri, 2025-08-22 at 18:46 -0500, olcott wrote:
On 8/22/2025 6:31 PM, wij wrote:
On Fri, 2025-08-22 at 18:22 -0500, olcott wrote:
On 8/22/2025 6:06 PM, wij wrote:
On Fri, 2025-08-22 at 06:33 +0800, wij wrote:
On Thu, 2025-08-21 at 16:29 -0500, olcott wrote:
On 8/21/2025 4:08 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-08-21, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/21/2025 2:30 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
If you ask questions using the same words and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> identifiers and
what that are used in your rhetoric, you will just get >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> token
predictions across that text space consisting of your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own stuff.
It is a matter of easily verified fact that once >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one knows that the x86utm operating system provides >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the infrastructure so that HHH can simulate an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instance of itself simulating an instance of DD >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when its own DD calls HHH(DD) then
It is a matter of easily verified fact that you are using >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the phrase
"instance of itself" to refer to a situation between two >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dissimilar
deciders which are implemented in the same C function HHH, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distinguishing themselves by different control flow paths >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in response to
a mutating static variable.
This is not only a crime against computer science, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against
the English language, whose "itself" pronoun you are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abusing.
The control paths are the same without the static data. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That DD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt is now >>>>>>>>>>>>>> reported by an OOM error instead of HHH.
The five LLM systems are correct that HHH(DD)==0 is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct even if HHH cannot see this itself.
Apparently you just learn by rote, you don't understand >>>>>>>>>>>>> what HHH(DD)==0 means.
Q: What is the value of proposition X&~X, why? True,False >>>>>>>>>>>>> (or Undecidable if
your answer is not True/False)
Failed, loser? Chicken out? That's OK, we can switch to >>>>>>>>>>>> others, shall we?
Here is my best answer yet: (X ∧ ¬X) ⊨ ⊥
In logic, the symbol ⊨ is called the double turnstile. >>>>>>>>>>> It is often read as "entails", "models",
"is a semantic consequence of"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_turnstile
"Up tack" is the Unicode name for a symbol ⊥...
The truth value 'false', or a logical constant
denoting a proposition in logic that is always false.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_tack
Fine.
Q: What is the value of proposition X∧¬X? why? True,False (or >>>>>>>>>> Undecidable if
your answer is not True/False)
Read and reread all of the above
10 million times if needed for you
to understand that I already answered
that question.
That would indicate you don't understand English "the value of >>>>>>>> proposition X∧¬X"
That you do not understand the meaning
of the symbols is no excuse because I
provided the definition of these symbols.
I think it is you don't understand what the symbols mean. But I >>>>>>>> can make it even more
elementary to suit your level.
What does X∧¬X mean? What is X, what is ∧, what is ¬ ?
"the value of proposition X∧¬X"
AKA (X ∧ ¬X) ⊨ (AKA has a value of) ⊥ (AKA Falsum)
I think you just like to use POO terms (so you can reinterpret it. >>>>>> A sign of dishonest and
cheating. But fine, understandable).
Then, what is 'X'?
Can X be a substitue of "HHH(D) does not reach its 'ret'
instruction"?
What! You don't know?
Shall we conclude: olcott does not know basic logic? (I mean what
logic mean, not 'form')
You have proven that you do not know
the symbols of logic even when they
are explained to you.
I was asking elementary logic questions. You cannot answer but instead
jumping to POO conclusion
that "I do not know the symbols of logic", which indicates you are crazy.
The principle of explosion is a psychosis
embedded in the heart of logic.
According to the POE when we assume that
the Moon is made from green cheese and
the Moon is not made from green cheese
this "proves" that Donald Trump is the
Lord and savior Jesus Christ.
On 8/22/2025 9:12 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2025-08-22 20:04, olcott wrote:
On 8/22/2025 8:49 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2025-08-22 19:44, olcott wrote:
On 8/22/2025 8:27 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2025-08-22 19:15, olcott wrote:
On 8/22/2025 8:11 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
Do you understand the difference between f (false, a truth
value), and ⊥ (falsum) or between t (true, a truth value) and ⊤ >>>>>>>> (verum)? Or are you just randomly throwing out symbols you have >>>>>>>> run across on wikipedia pages?
André
Unless Wikipedia is a liar:
a logical constant denoting a proposition in logic that is always >>>>>>> false.
Which means it is not a truth value, it is a stand in for a
proposition, so it isn't an answer to the question "what is the
value of (X ∧ ¬X)".
It is a proposition that is always false.
It is a psychosis that that I don't share
that the principle of explosion is valid.
Asking the question "what is the value of (X ∧ ¬X)" has nothing to >>>> do with the principle of explosion. It's a simple request for a
truth value, and its truth value is simply 'false' (why you couldn't
have just said this is beyond me). 'false' and 'falsum' aren't
interchangeable.
We must kill off any inference from a contradiction
to kill off the POE. ⊥ seems to do that.
That's a non-sequitur. ⊥ is simply a symbol. It can't 'kill off'
anything.
André
When we stipulate the convention that: (X ∧ ¬X) ⊨ ⊥
then we have killed the Principle of Explosion.
Why would you need to "stipulate" this as a 'convention"? It follows
from the basic principles of logic.
It also follows from the basic principles of logic that (X ∧ ¬X) ⊨ ⊤, >> so the above hardly "kills off" the principle of explosion. A given
formula can entail many different things. And, since you don't like
the principle of explosion, I'll note that (X ∧ ¬X) ⊨ ⊤ follows from >> the observation that anything entails a tautology.
André
According to the POE when we assume that
the Moon is made from green cheese and
the Moon is not made from green cheese
this "proves" that Donald Trump is the
Lord and savior Jesus Christ.
When we mandate that semantics is not
allowed to be divorced from rules-of-inference
then the POE is shown to be psychotic nonsense.
We must kill off any inference from a contradiction
to kill off the POE. ⊥ seems to do that.
On 8/22/2025 9:33 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2025-08-22 20:30, olcott wrote:
According to the POE when we assume that
the Moon is made from green cheese and
the Moon is not made from green cheese
this "proves" that Donald Trump is the
Lord and savior Jesus Christ.
And why is this a problem?
André
This is one of the many things that are
broken with human understanding of truth.
Very well crafted are causing the end
of life on Earth for the sole purpose of
earning more $.
If every liar could proven to be a liar
in a million different ways in less than
one second of them telling a lie, they
would not be able to get away with their lies.
My work for the last 22 years always had
this as its primary goal and focus.
On 2025-08-23, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
We must kill off any inference from a contradiction
to kill off the POE. ⊥ seems to do that.
By this, are you expressing your wish that the proof method known as /reductio ad absurdum/ be considered invalid and all proofs hitherto
rooted in that technique be overturned?
Implication is also misleading.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradoxes_of_material_implication
I would replace it with <is a necessary consequence of> operator.
On 2025-08-23, Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> wrote:
On 2025-08-23, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
We must kill off any inference from a contradiction
to kill off the POE. ⊥ seems to do that.
By this, are you expressing your wish that the proof method known as
/reductio ad absurdum/ be considered invalid and all proofs hitherto
rooted in that technique be overturned?
Oh sorry; it is clear that you are talking about Principle of Explosion
(/ex falso sequitur quodlibet/); never mind.
On 8/22/2025 10:15 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-08-23, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
We must kill off any inference from a contradiction
to kill off the POE. ⊥ seems to do that.
By this, are you expressing your wish that the proof method known as
/reductio ad absurdum/ be considered invalid and all proofs hitherto
rooted in that technique be overturned?
I would go much more in the opposite direction
and require all inference rules to be fully
anchored in formalized natural language semantics.
That would uncover many more absurdities that are
currently construed as truths.
Since the Halting Theorem is wrong, and one of the ways
it can be proven involves /reduction ad absurdum/, it must be
that /reductio ad absurdum/ itself is invalid. Is that it?
I don't know that the halting theorem is wrong.
It does seem that the conventional proofs do not
prove the the halting theorem.
Sure, all your debating opponents only disagree with you about
halting because they have been deceived by the false method of assuming
that what is to be disproved is true, and showing that it leads to a
contradiction/falsehood.
Tiny errors lead to be mistakes. If it is possible
for a simulating termination analyzer to see the
repeating state of its simulated input then the
proof of the halting problem will be shown to be flawed.
On 8/22/2025 10:05 PM, wij wrote:
On Fri, 2025-08-22 at 21:30 -0500, olcott wrote:
On 8/22/2025 9:12 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2025-08-22 20:04, olcott wrote:
On 8/22/2025 8:49 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2025-08-22 19:44, olcott wrote:
On 8/22/2025 8:27 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2025-08-22 19:15, olcott wrote:
On 8/22/2025 8:11 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
Do you understand the difference between f (false, a truth >>>>>>>>>> value), and ⊥ (falsum) or between t (true, a truth value) and ⊤ >>>>>>>>>> (verum)? Or are you just randomly throwing out symbols you have >>>>>>>>>> run across on wikipedia pages?
André
Unless Wikipedia is a liar:
a logical constant denoting a proposition in logic that is always >>>>>>>>> false.
Which means it is not a truth value, it is a stand in for a
proposition, so it isn't an answer to the question "what is the >>>>>>>> value of (X ∧ ¬X)".
It is a proposition that is always false.
It is a psychosis that that I don't share
that the principle of explosion is valid.
Asking the question "what is the value of (X ∧ ¬X)" has nothing to >>>>>> do with the principle of explosion. It's a simple request for a truth >>>>>> value, and its truth value is simply 'false' (why you couldn't have >>>>>> just said this is beyond me). 'false' and 'falsum' aren't
interchangeable.
We must kill off any inference from a contradiction
to kill off the POE. ⊥ seems to do that.
That's a non-sequitur. ⊥ is simply a symbol. It can't 'kill off' >>>>>> anything.
André
When we stipulate the convention that: (X ∧ ¬X) ⊨ ⊥
then we have killed the Principle of Explosion.
Why would you need to "stipulate" this as a 'convention"? It follows
from the basic principles of logic.
It also follows from the basic principles of logic that (X ∧ ¬X) ⊨ >>>> ⊤, so
the above hardly "kills off" the principle of explosion. A given
formula
can entail many different things. And, since you don't like the
principle of explosion, I'll note that (X ∧ ¬X) ⊨ ⊤ follows from the
observation that anything entails a tautology.
André
According to the POE when we assume that
the Moon is made from green cheese and
the Moon is not made from green cheese
this "proves" that Donald Trump is the
Lord and savior Jesus Christ.
1. You don't know the basic logic, you cannot prove anything.
2. Let
A= "he Moon is made from green cheese"
B= "Donald Trump is the Lord and savior Jesus Christ"
(A ∧ ¬A)->B is a proposition whose value is True. But
that does not mean B is a True proposition.
Implication is also misleading. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradoxes_of_material_implication
I would replace it with <is a necessary consequence of> operator.
The same, "HP is undecidable" is True does not mean HP is decidable
(HHH(DD)==0).
The HP may be undecidable yet I proved that
HHH(DD)==0 is self-evidently true and the
same thing at the Turing machine level:
Ĥ.embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
And, you even go further backward to deny fact, making up Halt7.c in
various stupid way to support a false claim.
When we mandate that semantics is not
allowed to be divorced from rules-of-inference
then the POE is shown to be psychotic nonsense.
On 8/22/2025 10:07 PM, wij wrote:
On Fri, 2025-08-22 at 21:48 -0500, olcott wrote:
On 8/22/2025 9:33 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2025-08-22 20:30, olcott wrote:
According to the POE when we assume that
the Moon is made from green cheese and
the Moon is not made from green cheese
this "proves" that Donald Trump is the
Lord and savior Jesus Christ.
And why is this a problem?
André
This is one of the many things that are
broken with human understanding of truth.
Very well crafted are causing the end
of life on Earth for the sole purpose of
earning more $.
If every liar could proven to be a liar
in a million different ways in less than
one second of them telling a lie, they
would not be able to get away with their lies.
My work for the last 22 years always had
this as its primary goal and focus.
That is another bullshit. You only care "I am correct. HP is refuted"
The fact (what the status of HP) does not important to you.
As I have said several times (most here seem
to always ignore everything that I say) my
primary interest in the HP is to use as leverage
to refute Tarski Undefinability.
On 8/22/2025 10:43 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2025-08-22 21:24, olcott wrote:A material conditional formula P → Q is true unless P is true and Q is false; it is synonymous with "either P is false, or Q is true, or both".
Implication is also misleading.
No. There's nothing misleading about it. The logical → operator is
precisely defined. Your objection to it is that you expect it to
exactly correspond to the colloquial usage of if…then which is
impossible because the colloquial usage is extremely overloaded and
which includes material implication but also many other things.
This gives rise to vacuous truths such as, "if 2+2=5,
then this Wikipedia article is accurate", which is true regardless of
the contents of this article, because the antecedent is false.
Given that such problematic consequences follow from an extremely
popular and widely accepted model of reasoning, namely the material implication in classical logic, they are called paradoxes. They
demonstrate a mismatch between classical logic and robust intuitions
about meaning and reasoning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradoxes_of_material_implication
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form
that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be invalid.
A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all
of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
I would change this so that an argument is only valid if the conclusion
is a necessary semantic consequence of ALL of its premises. Otherwise
the from a false premise we can deduce that Donald Trump is the Lord
Jesus Christ.
On 8/22/2025 10:43 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2025-08-22 21:24, olcott wrote:
Implication is also misleading.
No. There's nothing misleading about it. The logical → operator is
precisely defined. Your objection to it is that you expect it to
exactly correspond to the colloquial usage of if…then which is
impossible because the colloquial usage is extremely overloaded and
which includes material implication but also many other things.
A material conditional formula P → Q is true
unless P is true and Q is false; it is synonymous
with "either P is false, or Q is true, or both".
This gives rise to vacuous truths such as, "if 2+2=5,
then this Wikipedia article is accurate", which is true
regardless of the contents of this article, because the
antecedent is false.
Given that such problematic consequences follow from
an extremely popular and widely accepted model of reasoning,
namely the material implication in classical logic, they
are called paradoxes. They demonstrate a mismatch between
classical logic and robust intuitions about meaning and
reasoning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradoxes_of_material_implication
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and
only if it takes a form that makes it impossible
for the premises to be true and the conclusion
nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive
argument is said to be invalid.
A deductive argument is sound if and only if it
is both valid, and all of its premises are actually
true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
I would change this so that an argument is only valid
if the conclusion is a necessary semantic consequence
of ALL of its premises. Otherwise the from a false premise
we can deduce that Donald Trump is the Lord Jesus Christ.
If you want to capture the various meanings of English if…then you
need to move beyond predicate calculus into modal/intensional logic.
But → will remain what it is.
Modal Logic operators defined
"◇" for "Possibly" and "□" for "Necessarily"
◇P ↔ ¬□¬P
□P ↔¬◇¬P
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradoxes_of_material_implication
I would replace it with <is a necessary consequence of> operator.
A binary version of '□' having the truth table of '∧'
On 8/23/2025 10:32 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2025-08-23 09:07, olcott wrote:
On 8/22/2025 10:43 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2025-08-22 21:24, olcott wrote:
Implication is also misleading.
No. There's nothing misleading about it. The logical → operator is
precisely defined. Your objection to it is that you expect it to
exactly correspond to the colloquial usage of if…then which is
impossible because the colloquial usage is extremely overloaded and
which includes material implication but also many other things.
A material conditional formula P → Q is true
unless P is true and Q is false; it is synonymous
with "either P is false, or Q is true, or both".
This gives rise to vacuous truths such as, "if 2+2=5,
then this Wikipedia article is accurate", which is true
regardless of the contents of this article, because the
antecedent is false.
Given that such problematic consequences follow from
I fail to see anything problematic about the above.
When it uses the word: "if" and does not have
the meaning of the word "if" this is misleading.
Modal Logic operators defined
"◇" for "Possibly" and "□" for "Necessarily"
◇P ↔ ¬□¬P
□P ↔¬◇¬P
Once again, you're throwing around symbols that you don't understand.
I am stipulating that they be given new meanings.
Modal logic is a very larger class of logics, and the interpretation
of 'necessity' and 'contingency' vary drastically between them. Which
one do you intend?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradoxes_of_material_implication
I would replace it with <is a necessary consequence of> operator.
A binary version of '□' having the truth table of '∧'
How can you have a "binary version" of a unary operator? And modal
operators don't have truth tables. (and if your "binary version" does
have a truth table, and its the same as ∧, then why bother with this
new operator? Why not just stick with ∧?)
André
I don't really need a binary '□' a ⊨ semantically
entailed by operator is enough.
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and
only if its conclusion is:
(a) a necessary consequence of all of its premises
(b) semantically entailed by all of its premises
Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be invalid.
On 8/23/2025 11:18 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2025-08-23 09:56, olcott wrote:
When it uses the word: "if" and does not have
the meaning of the word "if" this is misleading.
It does have the meaning of the word 'if'. Perhaps you don't
understand what 'if' means?
You must pay complete attention to everything that
I say or you get the wrong answer:
"This gives rise to vacuous truths such as, "if 2+2=5"
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and
only if its conclusion is:
(a) a necessary consequence of all of its premises
(b) semantically entailed by all of its premises
Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be invalid.
And how would that get rid of the POE?
Nothing is semantically entailed by a contradiction
besides false/falsum.
On 8/23/2025 12:41 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2025-08-23 10:32, olcott wrote:
On 8/23/2025 11:18 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2025-08-23 09:56, olcott wrote:
When it uses the word: "if" and does not have
the meaning of the word "if" this is misleading.
It does have the meaning of the word 'if'. Perhaps you don't
understand what 'if' means?
You must pay complete attention to everything that
I say or you get the wrong answer:
"This gives rise to vacuous truths such as, "if 2+2=5"
I did pay attention. What's wrong with vacuous truths?
They diverge from the common meaning of "if"
thus are communicatively misleading.
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and
only if its conclusion is:
(a) a necessary consequence of all of its premises
(b) semantically entailed by all of its premises
Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be invalid.
And how would that get rid of the POE?
Nothing is semantically entailed by a contradiction
besides false/falsum.
Not according to the semantics of →.
That is not the semantic entailment operator.
That operator makes sure to ignore semantics.
If you want to propose some new operator with different semantics, by
all means do so, but → is already defined.
André
(X ∧ ¬X) ⊨ ⊥
I don't think you really grasp what 'semantic entailment' means.
You've learned the symbol, but you don't understand it.
I am not referring to the nutty divorce of rules-of-inference
into a separate model theory. I am referring to semantic
entailment in semantics of linguistics where the meaning
of words proves the truth of the conclusions.
On 8/23/2025 1:04 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2025-08-23 11:57, olcott wrote:
On 8/23/2025 12:41 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2025-08-23 10:32, olcott wrote:
On 8/23/2025 11:18 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2025-08-23 09:56, olcott wrote:
When it uses the word: "if" and does not have
the meaning of the word "if" this is misleading.
It does have the meaning of the word 'if'. Perhaps you don't
understand what 'if' means?
You must pay complete attention to everything that
I say or you get the wrong answer:
"This gives rise to vacuous truths such as, "if 2+2=5"
I did pay attention. What's wrong with vacuous truths?
They diverge from the common meaning of "if"
thus are communicatively misleading.
How do they diverge from the common meaning of 'if'?
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and
only if its conclusion is:
(a) a necessary consequence of all of its premises
(b) semantically entailed by all of its premises
Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be invalid.
And how would that get rid of the POE?
Nothing is semantically entailed by a contradiction
besides false/falsum.
Not according to the semantics of →.
That is not the semantic entailment operator.
That operator makes sure to ignore semantics.
I don't think you really grasp what 'semantic entailment' means.
You've learned the symbol, but you don't understand it.
I am not referring to the nutty divorce of rules-of-inference
into a separate model theory. I am referring to semantic
entailment in semantics of linguistics where the meaning
of words proves the truth of the conclusions.
On 8/23/2025 1:22 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2025-08-23 12:08, olcott wrote:
I don't think you really grasp what 'semantic entailment' means.
You've learned the symbol, but you don't understand it.
I am not referring to the nutty divorce of rules-of-inference
into a separate model theory. I am referring to semantic
entailment in semantics of linguistics where the meaning
of words proves the truth of the conclusions.
I can't even parse the above. It's word salad.
André
That you do not understand the generic meaning
of the term: "semantics" is not my mistake.
When an English sentence is proven completely true
entirely on the basis of the meaning of its words
this is the real thing of semantics.
The syllogism accomplishes this same thing through
categorical propositions.
On 8/23/2025 1:22 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2025-08-23 12:08, olcott wrote:
I don't think you really grasp what 'semantic entailment' means.
You've learned the symbol, but you don't understand it.
I am not referring to the nutty divorce of rules-of-inference
into a separate model theory. I am referring to semantic
entailment in semantics of linguistics where the meaning
of words proves the truth of the conclusions.
I can't even parse the above. It's word salad.
André
That you do not understand the generic meaning
of the term: "semantics" is not my mistake.
When an English sentence is proven completely true
entirely on the basis of the meaning of its words
this is the real thing of semantics.
On 8/23/2025 2:06 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2025-08-23 12:27, olcott wrote:
On 8/23/2025 1:22 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2025-08-23 12:08, olcott wrote:
I don't think you really grasp what 'semantic entailment' means.
You've learned the symbol, but you don't understand it.
I am not referring to the nutty divorce of rules-of-inference
into a separate model theory. I am referring to semantic
entailment in semantics of linguistics where the meaning
of words proves the truth of the conclusions.
I can't even parse the above. It's word salad.
André
That you do not understand the generic meaning
of the term: "semantics" is not my mistake.
I fully understand the meaning of 'semantics'. What you don't seem to
understand is that when dealing with formal logic, all that is
relevant is the meaning of 'semantics' as defined in formal logic.
Your (Rather peculiar) views of the semantics of natural language are
not germane.
If you don't like the way formal logic works, then feel free to create
some new system that works the way you want it to work. But don't
expect others to adopt it.
Formal logic diverges from correct reasoning in many cases.
When a formal logical system begins with a predefined set
of basic facts in language L and there is no sequence of
truth preserving operations from these basic facts to
expression X in L then expression X is rejected as untrue
in L.
X = "X is not true in L" is rejected as not true in L
and this is not paradoxical.
When an English sentence is proven completely true
entirely on the basis of the meaning of its words
this is the real thing of semantics.
The only sentences which are "proven completely true entirely on the
basis of the meaning of [their] words" are tautologies.
André
The entire body of analytic knowledge is this same
semantic tautology thus proving Willard Van Orman Quine
to be incorrect when he said that no such body exists.
On 8/23/2025 2:06 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:How do you actually find out if there’s no such (finite, but unbounded) sequence?
I fully understand the meaning of 'semantics'. What you don't seem toFormal logic diverges from correct reasoning in many cases.
understand is that when dealing with formal logic, all that is relevant
is the meaning of 'semantics' as defined in formal logic.
Your (Rather peculiar) views of the semantics of natural language are
not germane.
If you don't like the way formal logic works, then feel free to create
some new system that works the way you want it to work. But don't
expect others to adopt it.
When a formal logical system begins with a predefined set of basic facts
in language L and there is no sequence of truth preserving operations
from these basic facts to expression X in L then expression X is
rejected as untrue in L.
X = "X is not true in L" is rejected as not true in L and this is not paradoxical.Yes, it is: if it is indeed not true, it says that it is true!
On 8/24/2025 1:01 AM, joes wrote:
Am Sat, 23 Aug 2025 14:33:49 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 8/23/2025 2:06 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
I fully understand the meaning of 'semantics'. What you don't seem toFormal logic diverges from correct reasoning in many cases.
understand is that when dealing with formal logic, all that is relevant >>>> is the meaning of 'semantics' as defined in formal logic.
Your (Rather peculiar) views of the semantics of natural language are
not germane.
If you don't like the way formal logic works, then feel free to create >>>> some new system that works the way you want it to work. But don't
expect others to adopt it.
When a formal logical system begins with a predefined set of basic facts >>> in language L and there is no sequence of truth preserving operations
from these basic facts to expression X in L then expression X is
rejected as untrue in L.
How do you actually find out if there’s no such (finite, but unbounded)
sequence?
Prolog can tell if an expression is derived from Facts and Rules.
X = "X is not true in L" is rejected as not true in L and this is not
paradoxical.
Yes, it is: if it is indeed not true, it says that it is true!
?- LP = not(true(LP)).
LP = not(true(LP)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
false.
Proves that LP is infinitely recursive, thus incorrect.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 39:06:55 |
| Calls: | 10,392 |
| Files: | 14,064 |
| Messages: | 6,417,185 |