Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register
| Newsgroups | sci.logic |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-26 10:25 -0700 |
| References | (17 earlier) <u4osfg$3n69u$1@dont-email.me> <349d311c-f8fa-4e6e-9e1b-85d7d2cc48f7n@googlegroups.com> <u4qgk6$is6$1@dont-email.me> <f41dd9f0-e92d-41f5-a760-f39884af220en@googlegroups.com> <u4qlbv$18ap$1@dont-email.me> |
| Message-ID | <f6f176da-e6c5-4b5e-878b-85a473fa4a7dn@googlegroups.com> (permalink) |
| Subject | Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning |
| From | Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> |
On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 12:05:24 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 5/26/2023 10:36 AM, Dan Christensen wrote:
> > On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 10:46:46 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 5/25/2023 11:02 PM, Dan Christensen wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, May 25, 2023 at 7:56:43 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 5/25/2023 5:41 PM, Dan Christensen wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, May 25, 2023 at 6:05:15 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 5/25/2023 4:45 PM, Dan Christensen wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 5:38:34 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 5/24/2023 4:30 PM, Dan Christensen wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 4:57:33 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2023 3:34 PM, Dan Christensen wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 4:13:39 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2023 2:15 PM, Dan Christensen wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 2:41:15 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2023 1:21 PM, Dan Christensen wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem in this case is that the key errors that are made in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> classical logic are things that you have no interest in:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gödel 1931 Incompleteness and Tarski undefinability.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> False ⇒ {any damn thing you want} is not truth preserving.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How is A & ~A => B not "truth preserving?" It is a tautology.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am actually referring to the truth table of ⇒
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that has True entailed by False on lines 3 and 4
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> How is that a problem? These are features of material implication that are admittedly rarely if ever used in daily discourse, but they are useful in very technical arguments (e.g .mathematical proofs). These features are easy to justify from what might be called first principles:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Prove: ~A => [A => B] (covers both lines 3 and 4 of the truth table where A is false.)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Suppose A is false
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. ~A
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Premise
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Suppose A is true
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. A
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Premise
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> These premises cancel each other out thus must be removed or logic
> >>>>>>>>>>>> diverges from correct reasoning. This cuts off the rest of the proof.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> How does one premise "cancel out" another? Note that there is no requirement that one premise be consistent with another. Your system of logic should be able to handle it. (See "proof by contradiction.")
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> When anyone makes contradictory statements we know that they are lying
> >>>>>>>>>> so we dismiss what they say on this basis. When logic does not do the
> >>>>>>>>>> same it diverges fro correct reasoning.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> [snip]
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> It seems your proposed system of logic cannot handle contradictions. It's easy in ordinary logic.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The Simplest Example : A Proof by Contradiction
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 1. A & ~A
> >>>>>>>>> Premise
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 2 ~[A & ~A]
> >>>>>>>>> Conclusion, 1
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> In other words, A & ~A is always false.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The way that correct reasoning actually works is that contradictions
> >>>>>>>> prove untruth.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If you derive a contradiction from an assumption , correct reasoning tells you that your assumption that is false.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Thus A, ~A as premises must be converted to False nullifying them
> >>>>> [snip]
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Wrong. There is no need to "convert" anything here.
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>> In other words you are saying that although ending up with a
> >>>> contradiction proves that the argument is unsound that we can start a
> >>>> sound argument with a contradiction?
> >>>
> >>> Ending up with a contradiction proves only that the corresponding assumption/premise is false. In that case, I don't know that the notion of soundness is meaningful.
> >>>
> >>>>>> instead of using one of these premises in a proof and ignoring the
> >>>>>> other. This this proof is incorrect:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> *Step --- Proposition --- Derivation*
> >>>>>> 1 -------- P ------------ Assumption
> >>>>>> 2 ------- ¬P ------------ Assumption
> >>>>>> 3 -------- P ∨ Q -------- Disjunction introduction (1)
> >>>>>> 4 -------- Q ------------ Disjunctive syllogism (3,2)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Again, you have not completed this "proof". You need 2 more statements:
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>> If you think it is wrong then go edit the Wikipedia page it is a direct
> >>>> quote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion#Proof
> >>>
> >>>>> 5 -------- ~P => Q -------------- Discharge 2, 4
> >>>>> 6 -------- P => (~P => Q) ---- Discharge 1, 5
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>> Do you not understand what it means to discharge a premise?
> >>>
> >> Discharge means to get rid of. He was discharged from the Army.
> >>
> >> In the natural deduction calculus, an assumption is discharged when the
> >> conclusion of an inference does not depend on it, although one of the
> >> premises of the inference does.
> >> https://users.cecs.anu.edu.au/~jks/LogicNotes/glossary/g_discharge.html
> >>
> >> Unless we ignore the law of non-contradiction we must have P, ¬P
> >> translated into false before we begin the above proof.
> >>
> >> This elimination rule agrees.
> >> (¬E) φ, ¬φ ⊢ ⊥
> >> https://iep.utm.edu/natural-deduction/#H4
> >> When we do that we can no longer use Disjunction introduction because it
> >> is not truth preserving.
> >
> > Not very useful definitions. No wonder you are confused.
> >
> > In the above proof, the conclusion on line 5 is derived from line 2 (the corresponding premise) and line 4 (the previous statement), inserting '=>' between them. Lines 2-4 will not then be accessible on subsequent lines of the proof having been essentially "deactivated." If the previous statement had been a contradiction of the form P & ~P, the conclusion would simply be the negation of the corresponding premise.
> >
> > Similarly, the conclusion on line 6 is derived from line 1 (the corresponding premise) and line 5 (the previous statement).
> >
> > I hope this helps.
> >
> > Dan
> >
> > Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
> > Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
> It seems that you are great at presenting the "received view" yet like
> all mathematicians and logicians totally unable to avoid rejecting
> philosophy of logic and math out-of-hand without review.
>
> Mathematicians and logicians treat this "received view" as if is
> necessarily infallible.
[snip]
What did you expect? Classical logic has proven so valuable in so many applications for centuries, perhaps millennia. If some philosopher now wants to make a name for himself by demanding that it be replaced by something radically different, it's going to be a very hard sell indeed.
Dan
Back to sci.logic | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-05-21 21:52 -0500
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-05-21 21:10 -0700
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-05-22 07:49 -0400
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-05-22 07:53 -0400
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-05-22 09:12 -0500
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2023-05-22 18:58 -0400
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-05-22 19:48 -0500
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-05-22 21:09 -0400
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-05-22 20:22 -0500
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-05-22 22:02 -0400
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-05-22 21:17 -0500
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-05-22 19:30 -0700
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-05-22 21:53 -0500
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-05-22 23:12 -0400
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-05-22 20:56 -0700
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-05-22 23:07 -0500
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-05-22 21:52 -0700
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-05-23 08:34 -0500
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-05-23 08:05 -0700
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-05-23 10:35 -0500
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-05-23 10:05 -0700
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-05-23 12:28 -0500
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-05-23 11:27 -0700
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-05-23 13:44 -0500
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-05-23 12:17 -0700
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-05-23 14:27 -0500
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-05-23 13:00 -0700
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-05-23 15:31 -0500
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-05-23 14:08 -0700
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-05-23 16:31 -0500
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-05-23 14:59 -0700
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-05-23 17:15 -0500
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-05-23 16:25 -0700
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-05-23 19:02 -0500
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-05-23 17:58 -0700
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-05-23 20:15 -0500
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-05-23 20:19 -0700
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-05-23 22:51 -0500
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-05-23 21:24 -0700
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-05-23 23:47 -0500
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-05-23 21:21 -0700
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-05-23 21:50 -0700
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-05-24 08:35 -0700
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-05-24 10:48 -0500
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-05-24 08:46 -0700
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-05-24 10:51 -0500
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-05-24 09:55 -0700
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-05-24 12:52 -0500
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-05-24 11:21 -0700
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-05-24 13:41 -0500
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-05-24 12:10 -0700
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-05-24 12:15 -0700
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-05-24 15:12 -0500
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-05-24 13:34 -0700
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-05-24 15:55 -0500
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-05-24 14:30 -0700
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-05-24 16:37 -0500
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-05-25 14:45 -0700
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-05-25 17:03 -0500
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-05-25 15:41 -0700
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-05-25 18:54 -0500
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-05-25 21:02 -0700
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-05-26 09:44 -0500
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-05-26 08:36 -0700
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-05-26 11:05 -0500
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-05-26 10:25 -0700
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-05-26 12:47 -0500
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-05-26 14:13 -0400
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-05-26 11:17 -0700
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-05-26 14:49 -0500
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-05-26 12:30 -0700
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-05-26 14:45 -0500
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2023-05-26 17:25 -0600
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-05-26 17:34 -0700
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-05-26 19:47 -0500
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-05-26 19:41 -0700
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-27 03:54 -0700
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-05-27 06:16 -0700
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-27 07:34 -0700
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-27 09:26 -0700
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-05-27 10:23 -0700
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-27 10:33 -0700
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-27 10:37 -0700
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-05-27 10:43 -0700
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-27 10:52 -0700
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-27 11:10 -0700
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-05-27 11:30 -0700
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-28 09:03 -0700
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-28 09:04 -0700
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-05-27 09:50 -0700
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-29 03:09 -0700
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-29 03:22 -0700
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-31 13:32 -0700
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-31 13:37 -0700
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-31 13:52 -0700
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-05-27 09:06 -0400
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-05-27 11:25 -0500
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-05-27 14:08 -0400
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-05-26 12:20 -0400
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-05-26 11:35 -0500
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-05-26 12:59 -0400
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-05-26 12:30 -0700
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-05-25 11:35 -0700
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-05-25 14:18 -0700
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-05-25 15:29 -0700
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-05-25 20:04 -0700
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-05-25 22:58 -0700
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-05-23 14:04 -0500
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning [final closure] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-05-22 22:18 -0500
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning [final closure] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-05-23 07:44 -0400
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning [final closure] Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-05-23 09:11 -0700
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-28 14:17 -0700
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-05-28 15:44 -0700
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-28 16:08 -0700
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-28 16:13 -0700
Re: The principle of explosion diverges from correct reasoning Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-28 16:26 -0700
csiph-web