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 7 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 Next page →
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-09 10:48 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <112njor$7ndt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645928 |
On 01/07/2026 18:04, olcott wrote: > On 7/1/2026 1:50 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 30/06/2026 16:45, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/30/2026 2:55 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 29/06/2026 16:23, dbush wrote: >>>>> On 6/29/2026 9:17 AM, polcott wrote: >>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> None, as you can't remove a truth-preserving operation. >>>> >>>> One can construct a system where a truth-preserving operation is not >>>> valid, and must if one wants to construct a paraconsistent system, >>>> where some but not every sentence can be both PTS-true and PTS-false. >>>> >>> >>> Current semantic entailment is the only inference step allowed. >> >> Every truth-prserving transformation is a correct semantic entailment. >> In particular, disjunction introduction is. > > That is counter-factual. No, it is not. It is a matter of definition. Because you have not defined "correct semantic entailment" as an inference rule my statement cannot contradict your definition. > POE is misconstrued as truth preserving. Who has said that POE preserves truth? And what does it even mean if one says that POE preserves or does not preserve truth? > Every element of logic is utterly discarded and only the underlying > semantics is preserved. If you reject inferences (wich are central elements of logic) then you can't infer anyting from anything. A part of natural language semantics is logical inference. If you reject logic you must also reject the logical part of natural language semantics. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-09 10:40 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <112nj92$7jh7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645883 |
On 30/06/2026 16:45, olcott wrote: > On 6/30/2026 2:55 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 29/06/2026 16:23, dbush wrote: >>> On 6/29/2026 9:17 AM, polcott wrote: >>>> 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 >>> >>> None, as you can't remove a truth-preserving operation. >> >> One can construct a system where a truth-preserving operation is not >> valid, and must if one wants to construct a paraconsistent system, >> where some but not every sentence can be both PTS-true and PTS-false. > > Current semantic entailment is the only inference step allowed. Nobody cares what you "allow" as long as you don't specify any inference rule. Probably nobody will care even if you will specify but there is no way to really know as long as you don't specify. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-28 12:22 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <111qp45$3h2oc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645804 |
On 28/06/2026 04:53, 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. You made it. It's up to you to correct it. Or you can interprete any non-claim as false or assume a third thruth value. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-28 12:18 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <111qosm$3h0lh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645794 |
On 28/06/2026 02:56, 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 The same without disjunction introduction: 1) P ∧ ¬P // Premise 2) (P ∧ ¬P) -> Q // Tautology 3) Q // Modus ponens -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-28 12:13 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <111qojd$3gudg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645785 |
On 28/06/2026 01:40, 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. The principle of explosion does not prevent infallible reasoning. It merely provides a simple way to detect and expose some failures to reason correctly. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-28 12:32 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <111qpms$3h4i2$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645753 |
On 27/06/2026 21:29, 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. It does not. In any sensible logic every tautology is provable. Then the principle of explosion follows. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-28 22:17 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <111so4t$1avt$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645824 |
On 6/28/2026 4:32 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 27/06/2026 21:29, 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. > > It does not. In any sensible logic every tautology is provable. > Then the principle of explosion follows. > That my proof to the contrary was simply erased is dishonest. Relevance logic also gets rid of the POE a different way. 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] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-29 12:29 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <111tduo$883h$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645829 |
On 29/06/2026 06:17, olcott wrote: > On 6/28/2026 4:32 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 27/06/2026 21:29, 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. >> >> It does not. In any sensible logic every tautology is provable. >> Then the principle of explosion follows. > > That my proof to the contrary was simply erased > is dishonest. No, it is not. To pretend having presented a proof when no proof has been presented is dishonest. As is to present false claims about a presented proof, or abaut anything. The comment >> In any sensible logic every tautology is provable. >> Then the principle of explosion follows. is perfectly honest. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-29 08:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <111tth6$cvoh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645824 |
On 6/28/2026 4:32 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 27/06/2026 21:29, 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. > > It does not. In any sensible logic every tautology is provable. > Then the principle of explosion follows. > POE is unprovable in both of these more sensible systems of logic. The POE is an actual psychotic break from reality when one pays full and complete attention to the underlying semantics and does not stupidly take semantics out of logic and put it in a separate model. Model theory was created only because keeping semantics directly within logic at the time was too complicated. It did make logic easier to work with and it also made logic diverge from correct reasoning. Only people having actual psychosis would conclude that "The Moon is made from green cheese" AND "The Moon is NOT made from green cheese" SEMANTICALLY PROVES that Donald Trump is the one and only Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Relevance logic, also called relevant logic, is a kind of non-classical logic requiring the antecedent and consequent of implications to be relevantly related. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relevance_logic 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] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-29 09:59 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <111tto2$apfa$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645842 |
On 6/29/2026 9:55 AM, olcott wrote: > On 6/28/2026 4:32 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 27/06/2026 21:29, 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. >> >> It does not. In any sensible logic every tautology is provable. >> Then the principle of explosion follows. >> > > POE is unprovable in both of these more sensible systems > of logic. The POE is an actual psychotic break from > reality when one pays full and complete attention to > the underlying semantics and does not stupidly take > semantics out of logic and put it in a separate model. It does follow from the semantics, as you have admitted on the record (see below): On 6/28/2026 11:56 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: >>>>>>>>> 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> >>>>>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> 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. >>> >> >> 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-30 11:10 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <111vtlf$u8a6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645842 |
On 29/06/2026 16:55, olcott wrote: > On 6/28/2026 4:32 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 27/06/2026 21:29, 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. >> >> It does not. In any sensible logic every tautology is provable. >> Then the principle of explosion follows. > > POE is unprovable in both of these more sensible systems > of logic. THe expression "these system" above does not denote. > The POE is an actual psychotic break from > reality when one pays full and complete attention to > the underlying semantics and does not stupidly take > semantics out of logic and put it in a separate model. No, it is not. The principle of explosion is about consequencies of a false premise, which already is a break from reality even when no consequence is inferred. > Model theory was created only because keeping semantics > directly within logic at the time was too complicated. > It did make logic easier to work with and it also made > logic diverge from correct reasoning. In a formal context the formal system specifies what reasoning is correct. In real world application the sules of ordinary logic are empirically correct, i.e., no situation is observed where the rules of logic are violated. > Only people having actual psychosis would conclude > that "The Moon is made from green cheese" AND > "The Moon is NOT made from green cheese" SEMANTICALLY > PROVES that Donald Trump is the one and only Lord > and Savior Jesus Christ. A proof in a formal system is a finite string that satisfies certain syntactic rules specifiec for the system. There is no reference to any semantics. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-30 08:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1120ht4$14g8n$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645876 |
On 6/30/2026 3:10 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 29/06/2026 16:55, olcott wrote: >> On 6/28/2026 4:32 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 27/06/2026 21:29, 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. >>> >>> It does not. In any sensible logic every tautology is provable. >>> Then the principle of explosion follows. >> >> POE is unprovable in both of these more sensible systems >> of logic. > > THe expression "these system" above does not denote. > Parry’s logic of Analytic Implication Relevance Logic https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-relevance/ >> The POE is an actual psychotic break from >> reality when one pays full and complete attention to >> the underlying semantics and does not stupidly take >> semantics out of logic and put it in a separate model. > > No, it is not. The principle of explosion is about consequencies > of a false premise, which already is a break from reality even > when no consequence is inferred. > Only because semantics is ignored. There is nothing semantically meaningful about a contradiction that derives anything at all besides FALSE. There is nothing semantically meaningful about FALSE that derives anything at all besides FALSE. >> Model theory was created only because keeping semantics >> directly within logic at the time was too complicated. >> It did make logic easier to work with and it also made >> logic diverge from correct reasoning. > > In a formal context the formal system specifies what reasoning is > correct. In real world application the sules of ordinary logic are > empirically correct, i.e., no situation is observed where the rules > of logic are violated. > The POE derives that Donald Trump is the one and only Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and Trump is not Christ therefore the POE is incorrect reasoning. >> Only people having actual psychosis would conclude >> that "The Moon is made from green cheese" AND >> "The Moon is NOT made from green cheese" SEMANTICALLY >> PROVES that Donald Trump is the one and only Lord >> and Savior Jesus Christ. > > A proof in a formal system is a finite string that satisfies certain > syntactic rules specifiec for the system. There is no reference to > any semantics. > It makes the huge mistake of ignoring semantics. -- 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 | 2026-06-30 10:01 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <1120i7a$1369e$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645884 |
On 6/30/2026 9:55 AM, olcott wrote: > On 6/30/2026 3:10 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 29/06/2026 16:55, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/28/2026 4:32 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 27/06/2026 21:29, 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. >>>> >>>> It does not. In any sensible logic every tautology is provable. >>>> Then the principle of explosion follows. >>> >>> POE is unprovable in both of these more sensible systems >>> of logic. >> >> THe expression "these system" above does not denote. >> > > Parry’s logic of Analytic Implication > > Relevance Logic > https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-relevance/ > >>> The POE is an actual psychotic break from >>> reality when one pays full and complete attention to >>> the underlying semantics and does not stupidly take >>> semantics out of logic and put it in a separate model. >> >> No, it is not. The principle of explosion is about consequencies >> of a false premise, which already is a break from reality even >> when no consequence is inferred. >> > > Only because semantics is ignored. > There is nothing semantically meaningful about a > contradiction that derives anything at all besides FALSE. > > There is nothing semantically meaningful about FALSE > that derives anything at all besides FALSE. False, as you have admitted otherwise on the record (see below): On 6/28/2026 11:56 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: >>>>>>>>> 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> >>>>>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> 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. >>> >> >> 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-01 09:53 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <1122dhl$1m9ka$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645884 |
On 30/06/2026 16:55, olcott wrote: > On 6/30/2026 3:10 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 29/06/2026 16:55, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/28/2026 4:32 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 27/06/2026 21:29, 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. >>>> >>>> It does not. In any sensible logic every tautology is provable. >>>> Then the principle of explosion follows. >>> >>> POE is unprovable in both of these more sensible systems >>> of logic. >> >> THe expression "these system" above does not denote. >> > > Parry’s logic of Analytic Implication > > Relevance Logic > https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-relevance/ > >>> The POE is an actual psychotic break from >>> reality when one pays full and complete attention to >>> the underlying semantics and does not stupidly take >>> semantics out of logic and put it in a separate model. >> >> No, it is not. The principle of explosion is about consequencies >> of a false premise, which already is a break from reality even >> when no consequence is inferred. > > Only because semantics is ignored. A break from reality is a break from reality, no matter whether the semantics is ignored or considered. Though if there is no semantics, even any ignored one, there is no connection to reality to break. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-01 10:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1123acq$1uikp$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645918 |
On 7/1/2026 1:53 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 30/06/2026 16:55, olcott wrote: >> On 6/30/2026 3:10 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 29/06/2026 16:55, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/28/2026 4:32 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 27/06/2026 21:29, 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. >>>>> >>>>> It does not. In any sensible logic every tautology is provable. >>>>> Then the principle of explosion follows. >>>> >>>> POE is unprovable in both of these more sensible systems >>>> of logic. >>> >>> THe expression "these system" above does not denote. >>> >> >> Parry’s logic of Analytic Implication >> >> Relevance Logic >> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-relevance/ >> >>>> The POE is an actual psychotic break from >>>> reality when one pays full and complete attention to >>>> the underlying semantics and does not stupidly take >>>> semantics out of logic and put it in a separate model. >>> >>> No, it is not. The principle of explosion is about consequencies >>> of a false premise, which already is a break from reality even >>> when no consequence is inferred. >> >> Only because semantics is ignored. > > A break from reality is a break from reality, no matter whether > the semantics is ignored or considered. Though if there is no > semantics, even any ignored one, there is no connection to > reality to break. > Ignoring semantics is always a break from reality. -- 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 | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-02 09:29 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <11250fn$2cv0q$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645929 |
On 01/07/2026 18:06, olcott wrote: > On 7/1/2026 1:53 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 30/06/2026 16:55, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/30/2026 3:10 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 29/06/2026 16:55, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/28/2026 4:32 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 27/06/2026 21:29, 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> It does not. In any sensible logic every tautology is provable. >>>>>> Then the principle of explosion follows. >>>>> >>>>> POE is unprovable in both of these more sensible systems >>>>> of logic. >>>> >>>> THe expression "these system" above does not denote. >>>> >>> >>> Parry’s logic of Analytic Implication >>> >>> Relevance Logic >>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-relevance/ >>> >>>>> The POE is an actual psychotic break from >>>>> reality when one pays full and complete attention to >>>>> the underlying semantics and does not stupidly take >>>>> semantics out of logic and put it in a separate model. >>>> >>>> No, it is not. The principle of explosion is about consequencies >>>> of a false premise, which already is a break from reality even >>>> when no consequence is inferred. >>> >>> Only because semantics is ignored. >> >> A break from reality is a break from reality, no matter whether >> the semantics is ignored or considered. Though if there is no >> semantics, even any ignored one, there is no connection to >> reality to break. >> > > Ignoring semantics is always a break from reality. So is any semantics other than real world semantics. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-02 09:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1125t80$2ljhn$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646011 |
On 7/2/2026 1:29 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 01/07/2026 18:06, olcott wrote: >> On 7/1/2026 1:53 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 30/06/2026 16:55, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/30/2026 3:10 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 29/06/2026 16:55, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/28/2026 4:32 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> On 27/06/2026 21:29, 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It does not. In any sensible logic every tautology is provable. >>>>>>> Then the principle of explosion follows. >>>>>> >>>>>> POE is unprovable in both of these more sensible systems >>>>>> of logic. >>>>> >>>>> THe expression "these system" above does not denote. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Parry’s logic of Analytic Implication >>>> >>>> Relevance Logic >>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-relevance/ >>>> >>>>>> The POE is an actual psychotic break from >>>>>> reality when one pays full and complete attention to >>>>>> the underlying semantics and does not stupidly take >>>>>> semantics out of logic and put it in a separate model. >>>>> >>>>> No, it is not. The principle of explosion is about consequencies >>>>> of a false premise, which already is a break from reality even >>>>> when no consequence is inferred. >>>> >>>> Only because semantics is ignored. >>> >>> A break from reality is a break from reality, no matter whether >>> the semantics is ignored or considered. Though if there is no >>> semantics, even any ignored one, there is no connection to >>> reality to break. >>> >> >> Ignoring semantics is always a break from reality. > > So is any semantics other than real world semantics. > Hypotheticals are useful for making decisions. -- 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 | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-03 11:22 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <1127rfn$38nc1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646018 |
On 02/07/2026 17:40, olcott wrote: > On 7/2/2026 1:29 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 01/07/2026 18:06, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/1/2026 1:53 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 30/06/2026 16:55, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/30/2026 3:10 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 29/06/2026 16:55, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/28/2026 4:32 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> On 27/06/2026 21:29, 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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It does not. In any sensible logic every tautology is provable. >>>>>>>> Then the principle of explosion follows. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> POE is unprovable in both of these more sensible systems >>>>>>> of logic. >>>>>> >>>>>> THe expression "these system" above does not denote. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Parry’s logic of Analytic Implication >>>>> >>>>> Relevance Logic >>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-relevance/ >>>>> >>>>>>> The POE is an actual psychotic break from >>>>>>> reality when one pays full and complete attention to >>>>>>> the underlying semantics and does not stupidly take >>>>>>> semantics out of logic and put it in a separate model. >>>>>> >>>>>> No, it is not. The principle of explosion is about consequencies >>>>>> of a false premise, which already is a break from reality even >>>>>> when no consequence is inferred. >>>>> >>>>> Only because semantics is ignored. >>>> >>>> A break from reality is a break from reality, no matter whether >>>> the semantics is ignored or considered. Though if there is no >>>> semantics, even any ignored one, there is no connection to >>>> reality to break. >>>> >>> >>> Ignoring semantics is always a break from reality. >> >> So is any semantics other than real world semantics. > > Hypotheticals are useful for making decisions. Which is an example of the usefulness of a break from reality. It als shows that calling a break from reality "psychotic" without further consideration. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-04 12:09 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <112beok$a6ck$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646056 |
On 7/4/2026 3:15 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 03/07/2026 17:50, olcott wrote: >> On 7/3/2026 3:22 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 02/07/2026 17:40, olcott wrote: >>>> >>>> Hypotheticals are useful for making decisions. >>> >>> Which is an example of the usefulness of a break from reality. It >>> als shows that calling a break from reality "psychotic" without >>> further consideration. >> >> That Donald Trump might start WW III is a hypothetical >> that can possibly be is useful. > > Whether Donald Trump will start WW III is not yet known, so that > cannot be called an example of counter-factual. > It is an example of hypothetical. You did not pay attention. >> That Donald Trump is the one and only Lord and Savior Jesus Christ > > is a hypothetical that cannot possible be making it useless. > > Maybe, but irrelevent as you did not claim it be useful when you > presented it. > -- 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 | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-06 10:20 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <112fkvt$1ojj8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646168 |
On 04/07/2026 20:09, olcott wrote: > On 7/4/2026 3:15 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 03/07/2026 17:50, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/3/2026 3:22 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 02/07/2026 17:40, olcott wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hypotheticals are useful for making decisions. >>>> >>>> Which is an example of the usefulness of a break from reality. It >>>> als shows that calling a break from reality "psychotic" without >>>> further consideration. >>> >>> That Donald Trump might start WW III is a hypothetical >>> that can possibly be is useful. >> >> Whether Donald Trump will start WW III is not yet known, so that >> cannot be called an example of counter-factual. > > It is an example of hypothetical. You did not pay attention. I did. You did not. The topic of the discussion before the part shown above was counter-factual sentences. >>> That Donald Trump is the one and only Lord and Savior Jesus Christ >> > is a hypothetical that cannot possible be making it useless. >> >> Maybe, but irrelevent as you did not claim it be useful when you >> presented it. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.math
csiph-web