Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction
André G. Isaak <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | sci.logic,comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.math |
|---|---|
| Organization | Christians and Atheists United Against Creeping Agnosticism |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 2026-07-06 16:36, olcott wrote: > 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. No. You claim that ⊥ ⊢ ⊥ which is to say that ⊥ can be derived from ⊥. But in a consistent logic, ⊥ shouldn't be derivable from *anything*. The only way you can derive it is by introducing a contradiction into your proof (that's what the first occurrence of ⊥ represents in your statement) which is exactly what the principle of explosion says. > 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. sci.lang is not populated by linguists. The vast majority of people who post to that group are simply cranks like you. You can't infer anything about what linguists may or may not know by following sci.lang. André -- To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.