Re: Olcott gets rid of the Principle of Explosion

On 06/07/2026 17:09, dbush wrote:
> On 7/6/2026 9:56 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/6/2026 2:16 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 04/07/2026 16:15, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 7/4/2026 1:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 03/07/2026 17:46, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 3:17 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 02/07/2026 17:37, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> x = "The Moon is made from green cheese"
>>>>>>>> y = "Donald Trump is the one and only Lord and Savior Jesus Christ:
>>>>>>>> POE concludes (x ∧ ¬x) ⊢ y
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "the principle of explosion is the theorem according to
>>>>>>>>   which any statement can be proven from a contradiction"
>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When you pay attention to the meaning of the words
>>>>>>>> and correctly apply correct semantic entailment on
>>>>>>>> the basis of the meaning of those words then the
>>>>>>>> principle of explosion is a PSYCHOTIC BREAK FROM REALITY.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, it is not. The premise x above is a break from reality. But that
>>>>>>> is not in logic, it was introduced by you. Even without the 
>>>>>>> principle
>>>>>>> of explosion it is possible to infer a false conclusion from a false
>>>>>>> premise. 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes. From "I am 35 feet tall" ⊢ "I am 35 feet tall"
>>>>>> and as you said my premise is literally FALSE
>>>>>> (P ∧ ~P) ⊢ FALSE
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The principle of explosion merely facilitates tinding a
>>>>>>> conclusion that is so obviously false that it convincingly proves
>>>>>>> that the remise is false. 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is nothing semantically relevant that can be
>>>>>> proven from a contradiction besides bare FALSE and
>>>>>> bare FALSE only entails bare FALSE.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, there is. From the contradiction "I have blue eyes and
>>>>> I don't have blue eyes" one can prove "I have blue eyes" and
>>>>> "I don't have blue eyes", both of which are semantically
>>>>> relevant, and one of which in addition is false.
>>>>
>>>> That is greatly restricted from the POE.
>>>
>>> Restrictions from the POE make lie detection harder and therefore lying
>>> easier. You may like that but others have different preferencies.
>>
>> Olcott gets rid of the Principle of Explosion
>> In Olcott Logic (P ∧ ¬P) ⊢ ⊥ and ⊥ ⊢ ⊥
> 
> Why would you say that when you agreed on the record that it's valid 
> because disjunction introduction is valid [...]?
When one is going to lie it may be better to make the audience to
forget as much of logic as possible.

-- 
Mikko