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 21:40, olcott wrote: > 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 really ought to take an introductory course in formal logic, or simply give up on trying to formalize things. If you really wanted to you could write something like ∀Φ ¬∃Ψ (Φ ∧ ¬Φ) → Ψ But simply looking at the truth table for → would reveal that this statement is false. >>>> 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. Consensus may not be a measure of truth, but accusing the overwhelming majority of logicians of being 'psychotic' seems a bit much. And I'll take the consensus of logicians who have actually studied logic over the word of one internet crank who has consistently demonstrated a complete ignorance of formal logic. André > *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 >> > > -- To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.