Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction

On 7/4/2026 10:23 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2026-07-04 21:17, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/4/2026 8:28 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> Q is a necessary consequence of P
>>
>> seems best handled by
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relevance_logic
>> or Parry's Entailment Logic
>>
>> P Q □
>> 0 0 0
>> 0 1 0
>> 1 0 0
>> 1 1 1
> 
> 
> That's *not* a valid truth table. It has no entry for P = 0 and Q = 1.
> 
> And Parry is working in relevance logic. He doesn't deal with modal 
> expressions like 'necessary'.
> 
> André
> 

You did not bother to notice that I just rejected
that whole idea in the part that you ignored.

-- 
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).