Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction

On 7/4/2026 3:16 AM, Mikko wrote:
> 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.
> 
> You did not compute correctely, let aloone coherently, whether
> I an irrational. You onlu presented your opinion about it.
> 

Merely rhetoric entirely bereft of a supporting basis.

-- 
Copyright 2026 Olcott

My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge.
The complete structure of this system is now defined.

The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is
comprised of two types of relations between finite strings:
(a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true.

My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by
expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal
language such as CycL of the Cyc project.

(b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically
entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).