Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.logic, sci.math, comp.theory |
| Subject | Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction |
| Date | 2026-06-29 08:17 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <111tr9p$1nomt$1@solani.org> (permalink) |
| References | (23 earlier) <111q42p$3c6ln$2@dont-email.me> <111q4od$3ak9b$7@dont-email.me> <111sqcu$1anq$1@dont-email.me> <111srcr$23qh$1@dont-email.me> <111tn87$apfa$1@dont-email.me> |
Cross-posted to 3 groups.
On 6/29/2026 7:08 AM, dbush wrote: > On 6/29/2026 12:13 AM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/28/2026 10:56 PM, dbush wrote: >>> On 6/27/2026 11:34 PM, dbush wrote: >>>> On 6/27/2026 11:23 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/27/2026 9:02 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>> On 6/27/2026 9:53 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/27/2026 9:49 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/27/2026 8:42 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/27/2026 9:40 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/27/2026 8:29 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/27/2026 9:24 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/27/2026 8:08 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/27/2026 7:56 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/27/2026 6:30 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/27/2026 7:22 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/27/2026 5:52 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/27/2026 6:40 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/27/2026 1:34 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/27/2026 2:29 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/27/2026 1:24 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/27/2026 2:03 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/27/2026 12:54 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/27/2026 11:11 AM, polcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/27/2026 2:08 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 26/06/2026 15:49, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/26/2026 1:49 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 26/06/2026 04:32, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> William T. Parry, Entailment Logics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gets rid of Disjunction introduction >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to prevent the principle of explosion >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simple logical matrix and sequent calculus >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Parry’s logic of Analytic Implication >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The main and distinctive feature of PAI (and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the many >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems of analytic implication belonging to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its ilk) is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the rejection of the classically valid >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> principle of Addition, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sometimes also referred to as Disjunction >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Introduction. In >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other words, the principle leading from a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formula ϕ to a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disjunction of the form ϕ ∨ ψ, where ψ is an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arbitrary >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formula. Parry blamed on this principle the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> derivability >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the paradoxes of strict implication—given >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> famously featured in Lewis’ derivation of an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arbitrary >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formula ψ from a contradiction of the form ϕ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ∧ ¬ϕ. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://philarchive.org/archive/SZMASL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He also gets rid of an efficient way to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> convince people who don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand much of logic. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I recently showed in another post. I figured >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all this out on my own. I didn't even know that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone else ever did this. I just knew that when >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying to find out what is deduced from a set of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> premises that you cannot pop in another sentence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from out of nowhere and get a correct conclusion. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By popping in another sentence from out of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nowhere >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (as it shows above) the principle of explosion is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> derived. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The usual meaning of proof is a sequence of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement where eachstatement either is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> premis or follows from one or more earlier >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statements >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Except with Disjunction introduction, that is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its problem. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you're saying that in the following natural >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language statement: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is a key issue in that it creates the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> psychotic break from reality known as the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Principle of Explosion, otherwise it may >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make no difference at all. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stay on topic or I will block you. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Explain in detail how the below which you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dishonestly trimmed is off- topic. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The topic is how Disjunction introduction enables the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Principle of Explosion. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rejected, as you not liking the result doesn't make >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it invalid. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Through a series of truth preserving operations, when >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a contradiction is given as true, any statement can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be proven as true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The principle of explosion is a demonstration of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *why* a formal system whose axioms lead to a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contradiction is useless. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only reason someone would want to get rid of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> principle of explosion is to be able to use a system >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that has a contradiction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My reason to get rid of the principle of explosion >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it to get rid of anything and everything that prevents >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infallibly correct reasoning. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you get rid of the principle of explosion, the law >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of non- contradiction goes away as it looses its basis. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You keep failing to pay close enough attention. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I only get rid of the POE by getting rid of Disjunction >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which you can't do because it's a truth-preserving >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) P ∧ ¬P // Premise >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) P // Conjunction elimination >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) ¬P // Conjunction elimination >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4) P ∨ Q // Disjunction introduction >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5) Q // Disjunctive syllogism >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion#Proof >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you insert English meanings into the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> propositional variables it is as obvious >>>>>>>>>>>>>> as a pie in the fact the DI IS NOT TRUTH PRESERVING. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So you're saying that in the following natural language >>>>>>>>>>>>> statement: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>>>>> At least one of the following statements is true: >>>>>>>>>>>>> - Earth is the third planet from the sun. >>>>>>>>>>>>> - <X> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Where <X> is any natural language statement, there exists a >>>>>>>>>>>>> statement X such that the condition "At least one of the >>>>>>>>>>>>> following statements is true" is false. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Name it. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> That is not Disjunction introduction combined with >>>>>>>>>>>> Disjunctive syllogism, it is bare Disjunction. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Let me spell it out more explicitly then. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Given that the following natural language statement is true: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>>> Earth is the third planet from the sun. >>>>>>>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> In the following natural language statement: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>>> At least one of the following statements is true: >>>>>>>>>>> - Earth is the third planet from the sun. >>>>>>>>>>> - <X> >>>>>>>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Where <X> is any natural language statement, does there exist >>>>>>>>>>> a statement X such that the condition "At least one of the >>>>>>>>>>> following statements is true" is false? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Where X is "What time is it?" >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Is the statement "Earth is the third planet from the sun" true? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We have a type mismatch error. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The statement you gave isn't a truth-bearing statement, so it >>>>>>> can't be used in logic. I didn't think I had to make that explicit. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> However, let's go with it anyway because it still illustrates the >>>>>>> point. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So I'll ask again: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Is the statement "Earth is the third planet from the sun" true? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On second though, let's back up as that might confuse you. >>>>>> >>>>>> Given that <X> is any *truth bearing* natural language statement, >>>>>> does there exist a statement X such that the condition "At least >>>>>> one of the following statements is true" is false? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Head games will be ignored. >>>>> That you did so well on the other things >>>>> so I will not block you. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Explain in detail how this is a head game. >>>> >>>> Failure to either answer the above question or explain how it is a >>>> head game in your next reply or within one hour of you next post in >>>> this newsgroup will be taken as your official, on-the-record >>>> admission that Disjunction introduction is in fact truth preserving >>>> and valid, and therefore so is the Principle of Explosion. >>>> >>> >>> Let the record show that Peter Olcott made the following post in this >>> newsgroup: >>> >>> On 6/28/2026 10:52 PM, olcott wrote: >>> > Q also can't bake a birthday cake, this does not make >>> > Q in any way "incomplete" relative to what it was >>> > defined to do. >>> > ... >>> >>> And more that one hour has passed with no attempt to answer the above >>> question or explain why it is a head game. Therefore, as per the >>> above criteria: >>> >>> Let The Record Show >>> >>> That Peter Olcott >>> >>> Has *Officially* Admitted: >>> >>> That Disjunction introduction is in fact truth preserving and valid, >>> and therefore so is the Principle of Explosion. >>> >> >> >> William T. Parry, Entailment Logics >> gets rid of Disjunction introduction >> to prevent the principle of explosion >> >> A simple logical matrix and sequent calculus for >> Parry’s logic of Analytic Implication >> >> The main and distinctive feature of PAI (and of the many >> systems of analytic implication belonging to its ilk) is >> >> the rejection of the classically valid principle of Addition, >> sometimes also referred to as Disjunction Introduction. In >> >> other words, the principle leading from a formula ϕ to a >> disjunction of the form ϕ ∨ ψ, where ψ is an arbitrary >> formula. Parry blamed on this principle the derivability >> of the paradoxes of strict implication—given that it is >> famously featured in Lewis’ derivation of an arbitrary >> formula ψ from a contradiction of the form ϕ ∧ ¬ϕ. >> >> https://philarchive.org/archive/SZMASL >> > > So someone came up with a different system that has different rules. > That has no bearing on existing systems. > The bearing that it has on existing systems is that it corrects their psychotic break from reality that allows one to prove that Donald Trump is the one and only Lord and Savior on the basis of a totally irrelevant contradiction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relevance_logic Does this same sort of thing in that they limit logic in a different way. If the conclusion is semantically irrelevant to its premises then the conclusion is not derived. > If you want to make up your own system, you need to throw out every that > depends on any definition or rule that you changed and prove everything > *from scratch*. > In my system we toss out and reject any and all logical inference that is not semantic entailment. Good: Bobby cut his hair therefore Bobby has less hair. Bad: Bobby cut his hair therefore Bobby filled his gas tank. The Prolog way to look at this is that in any system when the expression x cannot reach Facts though its Rules counts as untrue. Prolog goes a step further with its "closed world" "negation as failure" assumption that unprovable means false. I only say that unprovable means untrue it does not mean false. > As you've demonstrated on countless occasions, you don't even have a > high school understanding of logic, so this is far beyond your abilities. > > In the system everyone works in, Disjunction introduction is truth > preserving and valid, and therefore so is the Principle of Explosion, as > you have just admitted on the record above. > -- 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).
Back to sci.math | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-25 20:32 -0500
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-26 09:49 +0300
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 07:49 -0500
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 09:14 -0400
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 08:17 -0500
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 09:22 -0400
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 09:24 -0400
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 12:09 -0400
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 07:18 -0700
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-27 10:11 +0300
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-27 10:08 +0300
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 10:11 -0500
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 13:54 -0400
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 13:03 -0500
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 14:24 -0400
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 13:29 -0500
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 14:34 -0400
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 18:30 -0400
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 17:40 -0500
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 18:52 -0400
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 18:22 -0500
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 19:30 -0400
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 18:56 -0500
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 21:08 -0400
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 20:24 -0500
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 21:29 -0400
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 20:40 -0500
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 21:42 -0400
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 20:49 -0500
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 21:53 -0400
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 22:02 -0400
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 22:23 -0500
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 23:34 -0400
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-28 12:23 +0300
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-28 23:56 -0400
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-28 23:13 -0500
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-29 08:08 -0400
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-29 08:17 -0500
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-29 09:23 -0400
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-29 09:00 -0500
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-29 10:01 -0400
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-30 11:48 +0300
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 09:37 -0500
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-01 09:46 +0300
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 10:01 -0500
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-02 09:21 +0300
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 09:37 -0500
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 10:42 -0400
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-03 11:17 +0300
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 09:46 -0500
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-04 09:37 +0300
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 08:15 -0500
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 09:19 -0400
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-06 10:16 +0300
Olcott gets rid of the Principle of Explosion olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 08:56 -0500
Re: Olcott gets rid of the Principle of Explosion dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 10:09 -0400
Re: Olcott gets rid of the Principle of Explosion Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-08 12:05 +0300
Re: Olcott gets rid of the Principle of Explosion Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-08 12:02 +0300
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-06 13:17 +0300
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 12:54 -0500
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-06 12:57 -0600
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 14:06 -0500
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-06 13:17 -0600
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 15:04 -0500
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-06 14:20 -0600
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 16:54 -0500
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-06 16:15 -0600
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 17:36 -0500
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-06 16:50 -0600
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 17:53 -0500
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-06 17:37 -0600
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 18:40 -0500
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-06 18:47 -0600
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 20:24 -0500
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-06 19:49 -0600
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 20:57 -0500
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-06 20:11 -0600
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 21:24 -0500
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-06 20:41 -0600
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 21:44 -0500
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-06 21:03 -0600
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 22:12 -0500
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-06 21:28 -0600
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 22:40 -0500
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-07 09:31 -0600
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-07 11:04 -0500
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-07 12:46 -0600
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-07 14:19 -0500
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-07 13:29 -0600
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-07 14:53 -0500
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-07 14:08 -0600
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-07 16:13 -0500
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-07 15:24 -0600
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-07 16:30 -0500
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-07 17:06 -0600
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-07 19:05 -0500
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-07 19:17 -0600
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-07 20:49 -0500
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-07-08 15:12 -0700
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 21:58 -0700
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-07-07 08:44 -0700
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-07-07 08:56 -0700
Ross Finlayson what about the Prolog Liar Paradox ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-07 11:10 -0500
Re: Ross Finlayson what about the Prolog Liar Paradox ? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-07-07 10:53 -0700
Re: Ross Finlayson what about the Prolog Liar Paradox ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-07 13:07 -0500
Re: Ross Finlayson what about the Prolog Liar Paradox ? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-07-07 12:17 -0700
Re: Ross Finlayson what about the Prolog Liar Paradox ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-07 14:48 -0500
Re: Ross Finlayson what about the Prolog Liar Paradox ? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-07-07 14:35 -0700
Re: Ross Finlayson what about the Prolog Liar Paradox ? Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-07-07 21:57 +0000
Re: Ross Finlayson what about the Prolog Liar Paradox ? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-07-08 00:36 -0700
Re: Ross Finlayson what about the Prolog Liar Paradox ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-07 17:17 -0500
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-07-06 22:17 +0000
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 17:31 -0500
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-08 12:10 +0300
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-30 10:55 +0300
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 08:45 -0500
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-01 09:50 +0300
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 10:04 -0500
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 13:34 -0400
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-02 09:27 +0300
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-28 12:22 +0300
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-28 12:18 +0300
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-28 12:13 +0300
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-28 12:32 +0300
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-28 22:17 -0500
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-29 12:29 +0300
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-29 08:55 -0500
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-29 09:59 -0400
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-30 11:10 +0300
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 08:55 -0500
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 10:01 -0400
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-01 09:53 +0300
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 10:06 -0500
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-02 09:29 +0300
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 09:40 -0500
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-03 11:22 +0300
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 12:09 -0500
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-06 10:20 +0300
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-01 10:32 +0300
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 10:25 -0500
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 13:37 -0400
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 13:02 -0500
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 14:17 -0400
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-02 09:31 +0300
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 09:40 -0500
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-03 11:24 +0300
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 10:04 -0500
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-04 09:47 +0300
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 08:21 -0500
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-04 09:08 -0600
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 11:44 -0500
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-04 10:59 -0600
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 15:58 -0500
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-04 15:29 -0600
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 16:36 -0500
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-04 16:11 -0600
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 18:42 -0500
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-04 17:57 -0600
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 19:08 -0500
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-04 18:23 -0600
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 19:33 -0500
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-04 18:43 -0600
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 20:18 -0500
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-04 19:28 -0600
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 21:17 -0500
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-04 20:22 -0600
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 21:29 -0500
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-04 20:50 -0600
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 22:17 -0500
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-04 21:23 -0600
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 22:45 -0500
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-04 21:52 -0600
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 23:05 -0500
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-05 14:40 -0600
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-05 15:51 -0500
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-06 10:40 +0300
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-04 11:16 +0300
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 12:11 -0500
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-06 10:53 +0300
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-28 12:04 +0300
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-07-06 12:49 +0100
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 08:45 -0500
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 09:50 -0400
csiph-web