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 16:53, olcott wrote: > On 7/6/2026 5:50 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >> 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 > > > It is not explosive, full stop you are wrong. You're really not qualified to make such a claim. André -- To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.