Re: Olcott gets rid of the Principle of Explosion

On 7/6/2026 9:56 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/6/2026 2:16 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>> Restrictions from the POE make lie detection harder and therefore lying
>> easier. You may like that but others have different preferencies.
>>
> 
> Olcott gets rid of the Principle of Explosion
> In Olcott Logic (P ∧ ¬P) ⊢ ⊥ and ⊥ ⊢ ⊥
> 
> 

Why would you say that when you agreed on the record that it's valid 
because disjunction introduction is valid (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.