Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction

[ Followup-To: set ]

In comp.theory olcott <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 7/6/2026 3:20 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> > On 2026-07-06 14:04, olcott wrote:

> >> ⊥  ⊢ ⊥ no explosion.

> > Of course that's an explosion. It says that ⊥ demonstrates that ⊥ is true.


> That you do not know what explosion is is not my mistake.
> I thought that one of you two guys had a PhD in math
> is that you or Alan?

I have a batchelor's degree in maths.  I'm not sure about André, but I
expect he has at least a first degree in maths.  You do not, and it
shows.  It would be reasonable to expect at least a modicum of respect
for others' learning from you, given the rudimentary level of your own
general education.

> > Your problem is that you don't understand even the most basic facts of 
> > logic. Stuff that would be taught during the first week of an 
> > introduction to formal logic is beyond your purview, yet you somehow 
> > feel qualified to pontificate about logic.

Indeed.

> > André

> -- 
> Copyright 2026 Olcott

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).