Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction

On 04/07/2026 16:15, 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

If you can prove that FALSE is true then what is not true?

-- 
Mikko