Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction

On 7/6/2026 5:17 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> [ 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.
> 

He is flat out incorrect about explosion.

>>> 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
> 


-- 
Copyright 2026 Olcott

My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge.
The complete structure of this system is now defined.

The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is
comprised of two types of relations between finite strings:
(a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true.

My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by
expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal
language such as CycL of the Cyc project.

(b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically
entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).