Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction

On 7/6/2026 10:28 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2026-07-06 21:12, olcott wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> LLMs carry no weight in my opinion. 

This is also your own error.

> And since you can't clearly express 
> yourself, it wouldn't be clear exactly what they were agreeing with 
> anyways.
> 

How do we formalize: "from a contradiction nothing follows?"

>>> 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.
> 
> They've done it by adopting paraconsistent logics which raise their own 
> set of problems. Most importantly, though, none of them have claimed to 
> have removed the principle of explosion from classical logic.
> 

They did it by taking semantics out of the formal
language where it can be ignored. Ridiculously stupid
mistake.

>>> 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.
> 
> Since the overwhelming majority of logicians accept this having spent 

Proves that consensus is no measure of truth.

*In my new logic system*
P ⊢ Q means syntactic derivation implements
semantic entailment encoded in syntactically
the language.  This is the only inference
steps allowed. The entailment rules depend
on the represented domain.

So the above seems to be the only good way to do this.
Everything else is not as much as half-assed.

> far more than three seconds contemplating it, you might want to 
> reconsider your position. You really should contemplate the possibility 
> that you have misunderstood the topic.
> 
>>> 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.
> 
> No, it does not.
> 
> André
> 


-- 
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).