Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction

On 2026-07-06 13:06, olcott wrote:
> On 7/6/2026 1:57 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2026-07-06 11:54, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/6/2026 5:17 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.
>>>>>   (P ∧ ~P) ⊢ FALSE // is what can really be proved semantically
>>>>
>>>> If you can prove that FALSE is true then what is not true?
>>>>
>>>
>>> That is not proving that false is true.
>>> It is stipulating that contradictions
>>> only derive bare FALSE.
>>
>> Apparently you don't understand what 'derives' means.
>>
> 
> (P ∧ ~P) ⊢ ⊥ is a stipulated axiom. FALSE was the dumbed down version.

Which would mean that (P ∧ ~P) proves that ⊥ is true. Again, an example 
of explosion.

André


-- 
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail 
service.