Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction

On 7/4/2026 9:15 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/4/2026 1:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 03/07/2026 17:46, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/3/2026 3:17 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 02/07/2026 17:37, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> x = "The Moon is made from green cheese"
>>>>> y = "Donald Trump is the one and only Lord and Savior Jesus Christ:
>>>>> POE concludes (x ∧ ¬x) ⊢ y
>>>>>
>>>>> "the principle of explosion is the theorem according to
>>>>>   which any statement can be proven from a contradiction"
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
>>>>>
>>>>> When you pay attention to the meaning of the words
>>>>> and correctly apply correct semantic entailment on
>>>>> the basis of the meaning of those words then the
>>>>> principle of explosion is a PSYCHOTIC BREAK FROM REALITY.
>>>>
>>>> No, it is not. The premise x above is a break from reality. But that
>>>> is not in logic, it was introduced by you. Even without the principle
>>>> of explosion it is possible to infer a false conclusion from a false
>>>> premise. 
>>>
>>> Yes. From "I am 35 feet tall" ⊢ "I am 35 feet tall"
>>> and as you said my premise is literally FALSE
>>> (P ∧ ~P) ⊢ FALSE
>>>
>>>> The principle of explosion merely facilitates tinding a
>>>> conclusion that is so obviously false that it convincingly proves
>>>> that the remise is false. 
>>>
>>> There is nothing semantically relevant that can be
>>> proven from a contradiction besides bare FALSE and
>>> bare FALSE only entails bare FALSE.
>>
>> Yes, there is. From the contradiction "I have blue eyes and
>> I don't have blue eyes" one can prove "I have blue eyes" and
>> "I don't have blue eyes", both of which are semantically
>> relevant, and one of which in addition is false.
>>
> 
> That is greatly restricted from the POE.
>   (P ∧ ~P) ⊢ FALSE // is what can really be proved semantically
> 

Nope, as you have admitted otherwise on the record (see below):

On 6/28/2026 11:56 PM, dbush wrote:
 > On 6/27/2026 11:34 PM, dbush wrote:
 >> On 6/27/2026 11:23 PM, olcott wrote:
 >>> On 6/27/2026 9:02 PM, dbush wrote:
 >>>> On 6/27/2026 9:53 PM, dbush wrote:
 >>>>> On 6/27/2026 9:49 PM, olcott wrote:
 >>>>>> On 6/27/2026 8:42 PM, dbush wrote:
 >>>>>>> On 6/27/2026 9:40 PM, olcott wrote:
 >>>>>>>> On 6/27/2026 8:29 PM, dbush wrote:
 >>>>>>>>> Given that the following natural language statement is true:
 >>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>> --------------------------------------
 >>>>>>>>> Earth is the third planet from the sun.
 >>>>>>>>> --------------------------------------
 >>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>> In the following natural language statement:
 >>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>> --------------------------------------
 >>>>>>>>> At least one of the following statements is true:
 >>>>>>>>> - Earth is the third planet from the sun.
 >>>>>>>>> - <X>
 >>>>>>>>> --------------------------------------
 >>>>
 >>>> Given that <X> is any *truth bearing* natural language statement,
 >>>> does there exist a statement X such that the condition "At least one
 >>>> of the following statements is true" is false?
 >>>>
 >>>
 >>> Head games will be ignored.
 >>>
 >>
 >> Explain in detail how this is a head game.
 >>
 >> Failure to either answer the above question or explain how it is a
 >> head game in your next reply or within one hour of you next post in
 >> this newsgroup will be taken as your official, on-the-record admission
 >> that Disjunction introduction is in fact truth preserving and valid,
 >> and therefore so is the Principle of Explosion.
 >>
 >
 > Let the record show that Peter Olcott made the following post in this
 > newsgroup:
 >
 > On 6/28/2026 10:52 PM, olcott wrote:
 >  > Q also can't bake a birthday cake, this does not make
 >  > Q in any way "incomplete" relative to what it was
 >  > defined to do.
 >  > ...
 >
 > And more that one hour has passed with no attempt to answer the above
 > question or explain why it is a head game.  Therefore, as per the above
 > criteria:
 >
 > Let The Record Show
 >
 > That Peter Olcott
 >
 > Has *Officially* Admitted:
 >
 > That Disjunction introduction is in fact truth preserving and valid, and
 > therefore so is the Principle of Explosion.