Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction

On 04/07/2026 16:21, olcott wrote:
> On 7/4/2026 1:47 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. 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.
> 
> POE always breaks semantic entailment

How does 2 < 0 ∧ 1 < 2 → 1 < 0 break semantic enteilment?

>>> 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 ∧.
> 
> The notion of valid inference that I just established
> is the foundation of all semantic entailment.

Irrelevant to the fact that you don't need any implication
symbol if you have symbols for negation, disjunction, and
conjunction.

If you have a symbol for implication then it does not matter
how this symbol looks like, though an asymmetric symbol would
be better because the operation is asymmetric.

-- 
Mikko