Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction

On 7/6/2026 5:15 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2026-07-06 15:54, olcott 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 do know what explosion is in the context of logic. Apparently you do 
> not. And I've never claimed to have a doctoracte in maths. My background 
> is in linguistics.
> 
> André
> 

You are flat our wrong about explosion. I thought that
one of you two guys had a PhD in something. Most linguists
don't have a clue about formal semantics I spoke on sci.lang
for at least 10 years. None of them ever had much of a clue
about this.


-- 
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).