Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction

On 03/07/2026 18:04, olcott wrote:
> On 7/3/2026 3:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 02/07/2026 17:40, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/2/2026 1:31 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Getting rid of the principle of explosion makes as much sense as
>>>> getting rid of fire alarms. It makes much more sense to get rid
>>>> of fires and false premises.
>>>
>>> Then you are irrational
>>
>> Matter of opinion, 
> 
> Matter of correctly and coherently computing the notion
> of truth. My correction to the Principle of Explosion:
> (P ∧ ~P) ⊢ FALSE
> FALSE ⊢ FALSE
> 
>> but I think that most of people would consder
>> getting rid of fires is more rational that getting rid of fire
>> alarms.
> 
> It is not a fire alarm it is getting rid of semantics
> within inference. My correct reasoning correction to
> logic gets rid of every type of inference besides
> semantic entailment.

Getting rid of any type of inference does not make much difference
as long as you get the same conclusions through other inferences.
Only getting rid of some conscusions it makes a significant
difference. But you have never shown an example of getting rid of
a conclusion without losing a semantic entailment.

> Validity and Soundness
> 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. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
> 
> *That big mistake is corrected thusly*
> A deductive argument is said to be valid if
> and only if its conclusion is a necessary
> consequence of all of its premises Otherwise,
> a deductive argument is said to be invalid.
> 
> P ⇒ Q
> P → Q
> P ⊃ Q
> 
> are all abolished and replaced with the binary
> form of logical necessity: P □ Q

You don't need any of above if you have ¬, ∨, and ∧.

-- 
Mikko