Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction

On 7/6/2026 10:03 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2026-07-06 20:44, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/6/2026 9:41 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2026-07-06 20:24, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>>> ∀x(φ(x) ∧ ¬φ(x)) ⊢ ⊥
>>>> and
>>>>         Γ ⊢ ⊥
>>>> --------------------
>>>> derivation terminated
>>>
>>> That's simply gibberish.
>>>
>>> André
>>>
>>
>> How do you think that:
>>  From a contradiction nothing follows
>> should be encoded?
> 
> Since you don't understand the formalism you're trying to use, why 
> bother trying to formalize it? 

Both LLMs agree that I am already correct.

> You can simply state it in English. but 
> what you're stating is simply false. 

I am overriding and superseding the psychotic break
from reality of the principle of explosion.
Numerous famous logicians have done this same
thing in several different ways.

> The fact that *anything* follows 
> from a contradiction 

Is totally fucked up nonsense that only a psychotic
would not reject in less than three seconds.

> isn't some axiom that can be removed from standard 
> logic and replaced with something else. It's a consequence of the basic 
> definitions used.
> 
> André
> 

That breaks the coherence notion of truth.

-- 
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).