Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.math > #645668 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-06-25 20:32 -0500 |
| Last post | 2026-07-06 09:50 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 185 — 9 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.math
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> - 2026-07-09 10:48 +0300
Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-09 10:40 +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
Page 1 of 10 [1] 2 3 … 10 Next page →
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-25 20:32 -0500 |
| Subject | William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction |
| Message-ID | <111kkr2$6t8i$1@dont-email.me> |
William T. Parry, Entailment Logics gets rid of Disjunction introduction to prevent the principle of explosion A simple logical matrix and sequent calculus for Parry’s logic of Analytic Implication The main and distinctive feature of PAI (and of the many systems of analytic implication belonging to its ilk) is the rejection of the classically valid principle of Addition, sometimes also referred to as Disjunction Introduction. In other words, the principle leading from a formula ϕ to a disjunction of the form ϕ ∨ ψ, where ψ is an arbitrary formula. Parry blamed on this principle the derivability of the paradoxes of strict implication—given that it is famously featured in Lewis’ derivation of an arbitrary formula ψ from a contradiction of the form ϕ ∧ ¬ϕ. https://philarchive.org/archive/SZMASL -- Copyright 2026 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge. The complete structure of this system is now defined. The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is comprised of two types of relations between finite strings: (a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true. My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal language such as CycL of the Cyc project. (b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-26 09:49 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <111l7ej$bagg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645668 |
On 26/06/2026 04:32, olcott wrote: > William T. Parry, Entailment Logics > gets rid of Disjunction introduction > to prevent the principle of explosion > > A simple logical matrix and sequent calculus for > Parry’s logic of Analytic Implication > > The main and distinctive feature of PAI (and of the many > systems of analytic implication belonging to its ilk) is > the rejection of the classically valid principle of Addition, > sometimes also referred to as Disjunction Introduction. In > other words, the principle leading from a formula ϕ to a > disjunction of the form ϕ ∨ ψ, where ψ is an arbitrary > formula. Parry blamed on this principle the derivability > of the paradoxes of strict implication—given that it is > famously featured in Lewis’ derivation of an arbitrary > formula ψ from a contradiction of the form ϕ ∧ ¬ϕ. > > https://philarchive.org/archive/SZMASL He also gets rid of an efficient way to convince people who don't understand much of logic. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-26 07:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <111lsfu$hkkf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645677 |
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. -- 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).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-26 09:14 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <111lu0g$hlri$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645678 |
On 6/26/2026 8:49 AM, 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. Given that the following statement is true: -------------------------------------- There is a Walmart bag at the deepest point of the Mariana Trench. -------------------------------------- And the following statement has an unknown truth value: -------------------------------------- There is a Walmart bag at the deepest point of the Mariana Trench. -------------------------------------- When put together in the following natural language sentence: -------------------------------------- At least one of the following statements is true: - Earth is the third planet from the sun. - There is a Walmart bag at the deepest point of the Mariana Trench. -------------------------------------- Is the condition "At least one of the following statements is true" satisfied?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-26 08:17 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <111lu4s$i4fc$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645684 |
On 6/26/2026 8:14 AM, dbush wrote: > On 6/26/2026 8:49 AM, 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. > > > Given that the following statement is true: > > -------------------------------------- > There is a Walmart bag at the deepest point of the Mariana Trench. > -------------------------------------- > > And the following statement has an unknown truth value: > -------------------------------------- > There is a Walmart bag at the deepest point of the Mariana Trench. > -------------------------------------- > > When put together in the following natural language sentence: > > -------------------------------------- > At least one of the following statements is true: > - Earth is the third planet from the sun. > - There is a Walmart bag at the deepest point of the Mariana Trench. > -------------------------------------- > > Is the condition "At least one of the following statements is true" > satisfied? > You either are not bright enough to understand the deep meaning of Disjunction introduction or you are playing head games. Unless you want an honest dialogue please fuck off. -- 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).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-26 09:22 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <111luee$hlri$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645686 |
On 6/26/2026 9:17 AM, olcott wrote: > On 6/26/2026 8:14 AM, dbush wrote: >> On 6/26/2026 8:49 AM, 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. >> >> >> Given that the following statement is true: >> >> -------------------------------------- >> There is a Walmart bag at the deepest point of the Mariana Trench. >> -------------------------------------- >> >> And the following statement has an unknown truth value: >> -------------------------------------- >> There is a Walmart bag at the deepest point of the Mariana Trench. >> -------------------------------------- >> >> When put together in the following natural language sentence: >> >> -------------------------------------- >> At least one of the following statements is true: >> - Earth is the third planet from the sun. >> - There is a Walmart bag at the deepest point of the Mariana Trench. >> -------------------------------------- >> >> Is the condition "At least one of the following statements is true" >> satisfied? >> > > You either are not bright enough to understand > the deep meaning of Disjunction introduction or > you are playing head games. Unless you want an > honest dialogue please fuck off. > Why is it a head game? It's a simple question: Is the condition "At least one of the following statements is true" satisfied? Not answering this question can only be seen as dishonest. Do you intend to be dishonest?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-26 09:24 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <111luj9$hlri$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645688 |
On 6/26/2026 9:22 AM, dbush wrote: > On 6/26/2026 9:17 AM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/26/2026 8:14 AM, dbush wrote: >>> On 6/26/2026 8:49 AM, 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. >>> >>> >>> Given that the following statement is true: >>> >>> -------------------------------------- >>> There is a Walmart bag at the deepest point of the Mariana Trench. >>> -------------------------------------- >>> >>> And the following statement has an unknown truth value: >>> -------------------------------------- >>> There is a Walmart bag at the deepest point of the Mariana Trench. >>> -------------------------------------- >>> >>> When put together in the following natural language sentence: >>> >>> -------------------------------------- >>> At least one of the following statements is true: >>> - Earth is the third planet from the sun. >>> - There is a Walmart bag at the deepest point of the Mariana Trench. >>> -------------------------------------- >>> >>> Is the condition "At least one of the following statements is true" >>> satisfied? >>> >> >> You either are not bright enough to understand >> the deep meaning of Disjunction introduction or >> you are playing head games. Unless you want an >> honest dialogue please fuck off. >> > > > Why is it a head game? It's a simple question: > > Is the condition "At least one of the following statements is true" > satisfied? > > Not answering this question can only be seen as dishonest. Do you > intend to be dishonest? Copy/paste error above: the following statement is given as true: -------------------------------------- Earth is the third planet from the sun. --------------------------------------
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-26 12:09 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <111m88a$lde0$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645689 |
On 6/26/2026 9:24 AM, dbush wrote: > On 6/26/2026 9:22 AM, dbush wrote: >> On 6/26/2026 9:17 AM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/26/2026 8:14 AM, dbush wrote: >>>> On 6/26/2026 8:49 AM, 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. >>>> >>>> >>>> Given that the following statement is true: >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------- >>>> There is a Walmart bag at the deepest point of the Mariana Trench. >>>> -------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> And the following statement has an unknown truth value: >>>> -------------------------------------- >>>> There is a Walmart bag at the deepest point of the Mariana Trench. >>>> -------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> When put together in the following natural language sentence: >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------- >>>> At least one of the following statements is true: >>>> - Earth is the third planet from the sun. >>>> - There is a Walmart bag at the deepest point of the Mariana Trench. >>>> -------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> Is the condition "At least one of the following statements is true" >>>> satisfied? >>>> >>> >>> You either are not bright enough to understand >>> the deep meaning of Disjunction introduction or >>> you are playing head games. Unless you want an >>> honest dialogue please fuck off. >>> >> >> >> Why is it a head game? It's a simple question: >> >> Is the condition "At least one of the following statements is true" >> satisfied? >> >> Not answering this question can only be seen as dishonest. Do you >> intend to be dishonest? > > Copy/paste error above: the following statement is given as true: > > -------------------------------------- > Earth is the third planet from the sun. > -------------------------------------- Your lack of reply to this is your indication that you intend to be dishonest.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-27 07:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <WWWdncLh7PoHRqL3nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #645689 |
On 06/26/2026 06:24 AM, dbush wrote: > On 6/26/2026 9:22 AM, dbush wrote: >> On 6/26/2026 9:17 AM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/26/2026 8:14 AM, dbush wrote: >>>> On 6/26/2026 8:49 AM, 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. >>>> >>>> >>>> Given that the following statement is true: >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------- >>>> There is a Walmart bag at the deepest point of the Mariana Trench. >>>> -------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> And the following statement has an unknown truth value: >>>> -------------------------------------- >>>> There is a Walmart bag at the deepest point of the Mariana Trench. >>>> -------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> When put together in the following natural language sentence: >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------- >>>> At least one of the following statements is true: >>>> - Earth is the third planet from the sun. >>>> - There is a Walmart bag at the deepest point of the Mariana Trench. >>>> -------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> Is the condition "At least one of the following statements is true" >>>> satisfied? >>>> >>> >>> You either are not bright enough to understand >>> the deep meaning of Disjunction introduction or >>> you are playing head games. Unless you want an >>> honest dialogue please fuck off. >>> >> >> >> Why is it a head game? It's a simple question: >> >> Is the condition "At least one of the following statements is true" >> satisfied? >> >> Not answering this question can only be seen as dishonest. Do you >> intend to be dishonest? > > Copy/paste error above: the following statement is given as true: > > -------------------------------------- > Earth is the third planet from the sun. > -------------------------------------- > The "conjunctive normal form" (CNF) is a rather simple thing, being able to write things in terms of "AND" instead of "OR", for things like satisfiability (SAT problems, SAT solvers), that in terms of AND and OR and sometimes XOR and not so often NOR and XNOR with the NOT being a sort of predicate while then the above are combinators and operators, point being CNF while it simplifies some things, makes other things impossible, basically limits and completions. So, "getting rid of it" as part of the "term-free, constant-free, variable-free, parameter-free", also loses some expressive power, so this is also broken open and "PO" will again have to find a new one, as Prawitz et alia's "recovery" is an extensions, and this Parry's "truncation" is a fragment. Nobody needs "eliminating disjunctive introduction" to cut out "material implication" and its fiend "principle of explosion", it's like saying gonads are dirty and the best solution is to have them removed. It's like when people have prostatitis and end up getting prostatectomies when they should work it out.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-27 10:11 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <111nt2m$13erk$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645688 |
On 26/06/2026 16:22, dbush wrote: > On 6/26/2026 9:17 AM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/26/2026 8:14 AM, dbush wrote: >>> On 6/26/2026 8:49 AM, 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. >>> >>> >>> Given that the following statement is true: >>> >>> -------------------------------------- >>> There is a Walmart bag at the deepest point of the Mariana Trench. >>> -------------------------------------- >>> >>> And the following statement has an unknown truth value: >>> -------------------------------------- >>> There is a Walmart bag at the deepest point of the Mariana Trench. >>> -------------------------------------- >>> >>> When put together in the following natural language sentence: >>> >>> -------------------------------------- >>> At least one of the following statements is true: >>> - Earth is the third planet from the sun. >>> - There is a Walmart bag at the deepest point of the Mariana Trench. >>> -------------------------------------- >>> >>> Is the condition "At least one of the following statements is true" >>> satisfied? >>> >> >> You either are not bright enough to understand >> the deep meaning of Disjunction introduction or >> you are playing head games. Unless you want an >> honest dialogue please fuck off. > > Why is it a head game? Because you are playing Olcott's game. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-27 10:08 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <111nssr$13erk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645678 |
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 by a truth-preserving transformation. Or-intrduction discussed above is a truth-preserving transformation. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-27 10:11 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <111op6l$1kbl6$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #645722 |
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. > by a truth-preserving transformation. Or-intrduction > discussed above is a truth-preserving transformation. > We know that "Not all lemons are yellow", as it has been assumed to be true. We know that "All lemons are yellow", as it has been assumed to be true. Therefore, the two-part statement "All lemons are yellow or unicorns exist" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion I don't get why this was not tossed out as a psychotic break from reality the first moment that the first person thought of the POE. Human minds must be hard wired with short-circuits. -- 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).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-27 13:54 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <111p2od$34avj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645737 |
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: -------------------------------------- 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-27 13:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <111p38l$34i8f$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645748 |
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. -- 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).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-27 14:24 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <111p4gc$34asl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645750 |
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. Failure to do so in your next reply or within one hour of your next post in this newsgroup will be taken as your official, on-the-record admission that Disjunction introduction is valid, and by extension that so is the Principle of Explosion. >> >> -------------------------------------- >> 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-27 13:29 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <111p4qo$3504e$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645751 |
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. -- 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).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-27 14:34 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <111p534$34asl$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645753 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-27 18:30 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <111piuk$38fsa$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645755 |
On 6/27/2026 2:34 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. > Given that you still haven't responded to this, I (and others reading this) can only conclude that you agree that Disjunction introduction is valid, and therefore so is the Principle of Explosion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-27 17:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <111pjhh$38o7h$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645755 |
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. -- 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).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-27 18:52 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <111pk78$380jl$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645785 |
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. We *want* the principle of explosion because it shows us what can happen when we have a system that can prove a contradiction.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 10 [1] 2 3 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.math
csiph-web