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 8 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 Next page →
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-01 10:32 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <1122fq3$1modk$2@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 If the intent was to include that in the denotation you failed to say something important. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-01 10:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1123bgn$1uv0b$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645922 |
On 7/1/2026 2:32 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 > > If the intent was to include that in the denotation you failed > to say something important. > Parry’s logic of Analytic Implication and Relevance logic are two sensible systems that get rid of the Principle of Explosion. It was dead-obviously correct to anyone paying any attention at all that every contradiction only semantically entails FALSE. The only reason that it took more than five minutes for everyone to agree to this is that logicians are a herd of sheep and mindlessly obey what they have been taught even if this means that they must jump off a cliff. -- 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 | 2026-07-01 13:37 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <1123j89$21e16$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645933 |
On 7/1/2026 11:25 AM, olcott wrote: > On 7/1/2026 2:32 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 >> >> If the intent was to include that in the denotation you failed >> to say something important. >> > > Parry’s logic of Analytic Implication > and Relevance logic are two sensible systems > that get rid of the Principle of Explosion. > > It was dead-obviously correct to anyone paying > any attention at all that every contradiction > only semantically entails FALSE. False, as you have admitted on the record: 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 | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-01 13:02 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1123knd$21vqp$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645937 |
On 7/1/2026 12:37 PM, dbush wrote: > On 7/1/2026 11:25 AM, olcott wrote: >> On 7/1/2026 2:32 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 >>> >>> If the intent was to include that in the denotation you failed >>> to say something important. >>> >> >> Parry’s logic of Analytic Implication >> and Relevance logic are two sensible systems >> that get rid of the Principle of Explosion. >> >> It was dead-obviously correct to anyone paying >> any attention at all that every contradiction >> only semantically entails FALSE. > > False, as you have admitted on the record: > Liar > 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. > -- 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 | 2026-07-01 14:17 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <1123lis$22791$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645940 |
On 7/1/2026 2:02 PM, olcott wrote: > On 7/1/2026 12:37 PM, dbush wrote: >> On 7/1/2026 11:25 AM, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/1/2026 2:32 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 >>>> >>>> If the intent was to include that in the denotation you failed >>>> to say something important. >>>> >>> >>> Parry’s logic of Analytic Implication >>> and Relevance logic are two sensible systems >>> that get rid of the Principle of Explosion. >>> >>> It was dead-obviously correct to anyone paying >>> any attention at all that every contradiction >>> only semantically entails FALSE. >> >> False, as you have admitted on the record: >> > > Liar And now you lie about making such an admission when the evidence is right there below in black and white for all to see. Your dishonestly knows no bounds. > >> 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 | 2026-07-02 09:31 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <11250k5$2cv0q$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645933 |
On 01/07/2026 18:25, olcott wrote: > On 7/1/2026 2:32 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 >> >> If the intent was to include that in the denotation you failed >> to say something important. > Parry’s logic of Analytic Implication > and Relevance logic are two sensible systems > that get rid of the Principle of Explosion. Getting rid of the principle of explosion makes as much sense as getting rid of fire alarms. It makes much more sense to get rid of fires and false premises. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-02 09:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1125t9p$2ljhn$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646012 |
On 7/2/2026 1:31 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 01/07/2026 18:25, olcott wrote: >> On 7/1/2026 2:32 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 >>> >>> If the intent was to include that in the denotation you failed >>> to say something important. > >> Parry’s logic of Analytic Implication >> and Relevance logic are two sensible systems >> that get rid of the Principle of Explosion. > > Getting rid of the principle of explosion makes as much sense as > getting rid of fire alarms. It makes much more sense to get rid > of fires and false premises. > Then you are irrational -- 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 11:24 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <1127rjl$38nc1$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646019 |
On 02/07/2026 17:40, olcott wrote: > On 7/2/2026 1:31 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 01/07/2026 18:25, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/1/2026 2:32 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 >>>> >>>> If the intent was to include that in the denotation you failed >>>> to say something important. >> >>> Parry’s logic of Analytic Implication >>> and Relevance logic are two sensible systems >>> that get rid of the Principle of Explosion. >> >> Getting rid of the principle of explosion makes as much sense as >> getting rid of fire alarms. It makes much more sense to get rid >> of fires and false premises. > > Then you are irrational Matter of opinion, but I think that most of people would consder getting rid of fires is more rational that getting rid of fire alarms. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-03 10:04 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1128j2l$3fomk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646057 |
On 7/3/2026 3:24 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 02/07/2026 17:40, olcott wrote: >> On 7/2/2026 1:31 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> >>> Getting rid of the principle of explosion makes as much sense as >>> getting rid of fire alarms. It makes much more sense to get rid >>> of fires and false premises. >> >> Then you are irrational > > Matter of opinion, Matter of correctly and coherently computing the notion of truth. My correction to the Principle of Explosion: (P ∧ ~P) ⊢ FALSE FALSE ⊢ FALSE > but I think that most of people would consder > getting rid of fires is more rational that getting rid of fire > alarms. > It is not a fire alarm it is getting rid of semantics within inference. My correct reasoning correction to logic gets rid of every type of inference besides semantic entailment. Validity and Soundness A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be invalid. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/ *That big mistake is corrected thusly* A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if its conclusion is a necessary consequence of all of its premises Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be invalid. P ⇒ Q P → Q P ⊃ Q are all abolished and replaced with the binary form of logical necessity: P □ Q -- 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 | 2026-07-04 09:47 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <112aaa1$3uq7p$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646065 |
On 03/07/2026 18:04, olcott wrote: > On 7/3/2026 3:24 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 02/07/2026 17:40, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/2/2026 1:31 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> >>>> Getting rid of the principle of explosion makes as much sense as >>>> getting rid of fire alarms. It makes much more sense to get rid >>>> of fires and false premises. >>> >>> Then you are irrational >> >> Matter of opinion, > > Matter of correctly and coherently computing the notion > of truth. My correction to the Principle of Explosion: > (P ∧ ~P) ⊢ FALSE > FALSE ⊢ FALSE > >> but I think that most of people would consder >> getting rid of fires is more rational that getting rid of fire >> alarms. > > It is not a fire alarm it is getting rid of semantics > within inference. My correct reasoning correction to > logic gets rid of every type of inference besides > semantic entailment. Getting rid of any type of inference does not make much difference as long as you get the same conclusions through other inferences. Only getting rid of some conscusions it makes a significant difference. But you have never shown an example of getting rid of a conclusion without losing a semantic entailment. > Validity and Soundness > A deductive argument is said to be valid if > and only if it takes a form that makes it > impossible for the premises to be true and > the conclusion nevertheless to be false. > Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to > be invalid. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/ > > *That big mistake is corrected thusly* > A deductive argument is said to be valid if > and only if its conclusion is a necessary > consequence of all of its premises Otherwise, > a deductive argument is said to be invalid. > > P ⇒ Q > P → Q > P ⊃ Q > > are all abolished and replaced with the binary > form of logical necessity: P □ Q You don't need any of above if you have ¬, ∨, and ∧. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-04 08:21 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <112b1c6$5dkt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646126 |
On 7/4/2026 1:47 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 03/07/2026 18:04, olcott wrote: >> On 7/3/2026 3:24 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 02/07/2026 17:40, olcott wrote: >>>> On 7/2/2026 1:31 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Getting rid of the principle of explosion makes as much sense as >>>>> getting rid of fire alarms. It makes much more sense to get rid >>>>> of fires and false premises. >>>> >>>> Then you are irrational >>> >>> Matter of opinion, >> >> Matter of correctly and coherently computing the notion >> of truth. My correction to the Principle of Explosion: >> (P ∧ ~P) ⊢ FALSE >> FALSE ⊢ FALSE >> >>> but I think that most of people would consder >>> getting rid of fires is more rational that getting rid of fire >>> alarms. >> >> It is not a fire alarm it is getting rid of semantics >> within inference. My correct reasoning correction to >> logic gets rid of every type of inference besides >> semantic entailment. > > Getting rid of any type of inference does not make much difference > as long as you get the same conclusions through other inferences. > Only getting rid of some conscusions it makes a significant > difference. But you have never shown an example of getting rid of > a conclusion without losing a semantic entailment. > POE always breaks semantic entailment >> Validity and Soundness >> A deductive argument is said to be valid if >> and only if it takes a form that makes it >> impossible for the premises to be true and >> the conclusion nevertheless to be false. >> Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to >> be invalid. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/ >> >> *That big mistake is corrected thusly* >> A deductive argument is said to be valid if >> and only if its conclusion is a necessary >> consequence of all of its premises Otherwise, >> a deductive argument is said to be invalid. >> >> P ⇒ Q >> P → Q >> P ⊃ Q >> >> are all abolished and replaced with the binary >> form of logical necessity: P □ Q > > You don't need any of above if you have ¬, ∨, and ∧. > The notion of valid inference that I just established is the foundation of all semantic entailment. -- 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 | André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-04 09:08 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <112b7kj$7hif$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646146 |
On 2026-07-04 07:21, olcott wrote: > On 7/4/2026 1:47 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 03/07/2026 18:04, olcott wrote: >>> P ⇒ Q >>> P → Q >>> P ⊃ Q >>> >>> are all abolished and replaced with the binary >>> form of logical necessity: P □ Q There is no 'binary form of logical necessity. □ is a unary operator and an expression like P □ Q makes absolutely no sense. If you want to use this as a binary operator you'd actually need to *define* it. You don't seem to grasp this. You can't just introduce a new operator and expect people to know what it means. Also, moving into the domain of modal logic would be an incredibly strange thing for you to do given that in previous posts you claimed to reject the idea of models. But modal logic is *replete* with models. Modal logic operates over a set of many models. □P means that P is true in all accessible models of the system. André -- To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-04 11:44 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <112bd8n$9lde$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646154 |
On 7/4/2026 10:08 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: > On 2026-07-04 07:21, olcott wrote: >> On 7/4/2026 1:47 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 03/07/2026 18:04, olcott wrote: > >>>> P ⇒ Q >>>> P → Q >>>> P ⊃ Q >>>> >>>> are all abolished and replaced with the binary >>>> form of logical necessity: P □ Q > > There is no 'binary form of logical necessity. That is why I just created one. > □ is a unary operator and > an expression like P □ Q makes absolutely no sense. > Q is a necessary consequence of P makes perfect sense and corrects a fundamental error in the definition of valid deductive inference. > If you want to use this as a binary operator you'd actually need to > *define* it. You don't seem to grasp this. You can't just introduce a > new operator and expect people to know what it means. > □ Already means necessity, it is not that hard unless one makes great effort to pretend to not understand what is already unequivocally clear. > Also, moving into the domain of modal logic would be an incredibly > strange thing for you to do given that in previous posts you claimed to The only thing that I am using is logical necessity. > reject the idea of models. But modal logic is *replete* with models. > Modal logic operates over a set of many models. □P means that P is true > in all accessible models of the system. > > André > -- 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 | André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-04 10:59 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <112be4q$7hif$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646158 |
On 2026-07-04 10:44, olcott wrote: > On 7/4/2026 10:08 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >> On 2026-07-04 07:21, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/4/2026 1:47 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 03/07/2026 18:04, olcott wrote: >> >>>>> P ⇒ Q >>>>> P → Q >>>>> P ⊃ Q >>>>> >>>>> are all abolished and replaced with the binary >>>>> form of logical necessity: P □ Q >> >> There is no 'binary form of logical necessity. > > That is why I just created one. But you didn't define it. >> □ is a unary operator and an expression like P □ Q makes absolutely no >> sense. >> > > Q is a necessary consequence of P makes perfect sense > and corrects a fundamental error in the definition of > valid deductive inference. That would normally be written as □(P → Q), not as the nonsensical P □ Q. But you claim to have gotten rid of →, so how this is to be interpreted remains a mystery (and getting rid of → makes no sense since → represents a specific truth table which still exists regardless of whether you've assigned a symbol to it or not) >> If you want to use this as a binary operator you'd actually need to >> *define* it. You don't seem to grasp this. You can't just introduce a >> new operator and expect people to know what it means. >> > > □ Already means necessity, it is not that hard unless > one makes great effort to pretend to not understand > what is already unequivocally clear. > >> Also, moving into the domain of modal logic would be an incredibly >> strange thing for you to do given that in previous posts you claimed to > > The only thing that I am using is logical necessity. So how would you interpret 'necessity' without models? André >> reject the idea of models. But modal logic is *replete* with models. >> Modal logic operates over a set of many models. □P means that P is >> true in all accessible models of the system. >> >> André >> > > -- To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-04 15:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <112bs56$g7bu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646162 |
On 7/4/2026 11:59 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: > On 2026-07-04 10:44, olcott wrote: >> On 7/4/2026 10:08 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>> On 2026-07-04 07:21, olcott wrote: >>>> On 7/4/2026 1:47 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 03/07/2026 18:04, olcott wrote: >>> >>>>>> P ⇒ Q >>>>>> P → Q >>>>>> P ⊃ Q >>>>>> >>>>>> are all abolished and replaced with the binary >>>>>> form of logical necessity: P □ Q >>> >>> There is no 'binary form of logical necessity. >> >> That is why I just created one. > > But you didn't define it. > >>> □ is a unary operator and an expression like P □ Q makes absolutely >>> no sense. >>> >> >> Q is a necessary consequence of P makes perfect sense >> and corrects a fundamental error in the definition of >> valid deductive inference. > > That would normally be written as □(P → Q), That does not perfectly preserve the complete necessity between P and Q. P □ Q P → Q 0 ? 0 0 1 0 0 ? 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 Q is a necessary consequence of P is the same as English If P then Q (a) false when P is true and Q is false (b) true when P is true and Q is true (c) otherwise does not have a truth value. > not as the nonsensical P □ > Q. But you claim to have gotten rid of →, so how this is to be > interpreted remains a mystery (and getting rid of → makes no sense since > → represents a specific truth table which still exists regardless of > whether you've assigned a symbol to it or not) > >>> If you want to use this as a binary operator you'd actually need to >>> *define* it. You don't seem to grasp this. You can't just introduce a >>> new operator and expect people to know what it means. >>> >> >> □ Already means necessity, it is not that hard unless >> one makes great effort to pretend to not understand >> what is already unequivocally clear. > >>> Also, moving into the domain of modal logic would be an incredibly >>> strange thing for you to do given that in previous posts you claimed to >> >> The only thing that I am using is logical necessity. > > So how would you interpret 'necessity' without models? > To make it easy to understand we have the above propositional logic truth tables. They provide the framework. > André > >>> reject the idea of models. But modal logic is *replete* with models. >>> Modal logic operates over a set of many models. □P means that P is >>> true in all accessible models of the system. >>> >>> André >>> >> >> > -- 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 | André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-04 15:29 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <112btvr$fk73$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646175 |
On 2026-07-04 14:58, olcott wrote: > On 7/4/2026 11:59 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >> On 2026-07-04 10:44, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/4/2026 10:08 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>> On 2026-07-04 07:21, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 7/4/2026 1:47 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 03/07/2026 18:04, olcott wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> P ⇒ Q >>>>>>> P → Q >>>>>>> P ⊃ Q >>>>>>> >>>>>>> are all abolished and replaced with the binary >>>>>>> form of logical necessity: P □ Q >>>> >>>> There is no 'binary form of logical necessity. >>> >>> That is why I just created one. >> >> But you didn't define it. >> >>>> □ is a unary operator and an expression like P □ Q makes absolutely >>>> no sense. >>>> >>> >>> Q is a necessary consequence of P makes perfect sense >>> and corrects a fundamental error in the definition of >>> valid deductive inference. >> >> That would normally be written as □(P → Q), > > That does not perfectly preserve the complete > necessity between P and Q. What on earth does it mean for there to be a "complete necessity between P and Q". Necessity applies to propositions. It doesn't hold *between* things. □(P → Q) means that Q is necessarily implied by P. If you mean something other than that you're really going to have to clarify what you mean. > P □ Q P → Q > 0 ? 0 0 1 0 > 0 ? 1 0 1 1 > 1 0 0 1 0 0 > 1 1 1 1 1 1 > Q is a necessary consequence of P > is the same as English If P then Q > (a) false when P is true and Q is false > (b) true when P is true and Q is true > (c) otherwise does not have a truth value. So again your veering into the territory of three-valued logic. If a truth table contains any symbol other than T or F, you're dealing with a three or more valued logic which means you have to completely redefine every single logical operator before you can proceed. And there's nothing about the above table which in any way captures the meaning of 'necessity' so it's entirely unclear why you want to use the □ symbol here. Your '□' doesn't have any relation to necessity any more than '→' does above. Also note that formal logic is *not* c++. There's no such thing as operator overloading, so you can't take a unary operator and use it for some ill-defined binary operation as well. You need a new symbol since □ is already taken. P □ Q makes as much sense as P ¬ Q or P ∀ Q >> So how would you interpret 'necessity' without models? I note you didn't answer this. The notion of necessity in modal logic is intrinsically tied to model theory. How exactly are you defining 'necessity' if you're not making use of models? André -- To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-04 16:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <112bucf$hbmg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646179 |
On 7/4/2026 4:29 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: > On 2026-07-04 14:58, olcott wrote: >> On 7/4/2026 11:59 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>> On 2026-07-04 10:44, olcott wrote: >>>> On 7/4/2026 10:08 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>> On 2026-07-04 07:21, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 7/4/2026 1:47 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> On 03/07/2026 18:04, olcott wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>> P ⇒ Q >>>>>>>> P → Q >>>>>>>> P ⊃ Q >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> are all abolished and replaced with the binary >>>>>>>> form of logical necessity: P □ Q >>>>> >>>>> There is no 'binary form of logical necessity. >>>> >>>> That is why I just created one. >>> >>> But you didn't define it. >>> >>>>> □ is a unary operator and an expression like P □ Q makes absolutely >>>>> no sense. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Q is a necessary consequence of P makes perfect sense >>>> and corrects a fundamental error in the definition of >>>> valid deductive inference. >>> >>> That would normally be written as □(P → Q), >> >> That does not perfectly preserve the complete >> necessity between P and Q. > > What on earth does it mean for there to be a "complete necessity between > P and Q". Necessity applies to propositions. It doesn't hold *between* > things. > > □(P → Q) means that Q is necessarily implied by P. If you mean something > other than that you're really going to have to clarify what you mean. > >> P □ Q P → Q >> 0 ? 0 0 1 0 >> 0 ? 1 0 1 1 >> 1 0 0 1 0 0 >> 1 1 1 1 1 1 >> Q is a necessary consequence of P >> is the same as English If P then Q >> (a) false when P is true and Q is false >> (b) true when P is true and Q is true >> (c) otherwise does not have a truth value. > > So again your veering into the territory of three-valued logic. If a > truth table contains any symbol other than T or F, you're dealing with a > three or more valued logic which means you have to completely redefine > every single logical operator before you can proceed. > The English if P then Q only actually tells you P(true) then necessarily Q(true) Q(false) then necessarily P(false) IT DOES NOT TELL YOU MORE THAN THIS AND IT IS STUPID MISTAKE TO ASSUME OTHERWISE THE WAY THAT IMPLICATION STUPIDLY DOES. > And there's nothing about the above table which in any way captures the > meaning of 'necessity' so it's entirely unclear why you want to use the > □ symbol here. Your '□' doesn't have any relation to necessity any more > than '→' does above. > > Also note that formal logic is *not* c++. There's no such thing as > operator overloading, so you can't take a unary operator and use it for > some ill-defined binary operation as well. You need a new symbol since □ > is already taken. > > P □ Q makes as much sense as P ¬ Q or P ∀ Q > >>> So how would you interpret 'necessity' without models? > > I note you didn't answer this. The notion of necessity in modal logic is > intrinsically tied to model theory. > > How exactly are you defining 'necessity' if you're not making use of > models? > > André > Do you know what propositional logic is? then that is one way to avoid models. -- 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 | André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-04 16:11 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <112c0f8$i5ad$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646181 |
On 2026-07-04 15:36, olcott wrote: > On 7/4/2026 4:29 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >> On 2026-07-04 14:58, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/4/2026 11:59 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>> On 2026-07-04 10:44, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 7/4/2026 10:08 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>> On 2026-07-04 07:21, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/4/2026 1:47 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> On 03/07/2026 18:04, olcott wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> P ⇒ Q >>>>>>>>> P → Q >>>>>>>>> P ⊃ Q >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> are all abolished and replaced with the binary >>>>>>>>> form of logical necessity: P □ Q >>>>>> >>>>>> There is no 'binary form of logical necessity. >>>>> >>>>> That is why I just created one. >>>> >>>> But you didn't define it. >>>> >>>>>> □ is a unary operator and an expression like P □ Q makes >>>>>> absolutely no sense. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Q is a necessary consequence of P makes perfect sense >>>>> and corrects a fundamental error in the definition of >>>>> valid deductive inference. >>>> >>>> That would normally be written as □(P → Q), >>> >>> That does not perfectly preserve the complete >>> necessity between P and Q. >> >> What on earth does it mean for there to be a "complete necessity >> between P and Q". Necessity applies to propositions. It doesn't hold >> *between* things. >> >> □(P → Q) means that Q is necessarily implied by P. If you mean >> something other than that you're really going to have to clarify what >> you mean. >> >>> P □ Q P → Q >>> 0 ? 0 0 1 0 >>> 0 ? 1 0 1 1 >>> 1 0 0 1 0 0 >>> 1 1 1 1 1 1 >>> Q is a necessary consequence of P >>> is the same as English If P then Q >>> (a) false when P is true and Q is false >>> (b) true when P is true and Q is true >>> (c) otherwise does not have a truth value. >> >> So again your veering into the territory of three-valued logic. If a >> truth table contains any symbol other than T or F, you're dealing with >> a three or more valued logic which means you have to completely >> redefine every single logical operator before you can proceed. >> > > The English if P then Q only actually tells you > P(true) then necessarily Q(true) > Q(false) then necessarily P(false) > IT DOES NOT TELL YOU MORE THAN THIS AND > IT IS STUPID MISTAKE TO ASSUME OTHERWISE > THE WAY THAT IMPLICATION STUPIDLY DOES. You're introducing the word 'necessarily' here without any attempt to explain what is meant by this (by you). What is the difference between a) Q is a necessary consequence of P. b) Q is a consequence of P Give an example where b holds true but where a is false. If you can't do that, then your use of 'necessary' is completely meaningless verbiage. >> And there's nothing about the above table which in any way captures >> the meaning of 'necessity' so it's entirely unclear why you want to >> use the □ symbol here. Your '□' doesn't have any relation to necessity >> any more than '→' does above. >> >> Also note that formal logic is *not* c++. There's no such thing as >> operator overloading, so you can't take a unary operator and use it >> for some ill-defined binary operation as well. You need a new symbol >> since □ is already taken. >> >> P □ Q makes as much sense as P ¬ Q or P ∀ Q >> >>>> So how would you interpret 'necessity' without models? >> >> I note you didn't answer this. The notion of necessity in modal logic >> is intrinsically tied to model theory. >> >> How exactly are you defining 'necessity' if you're not making use of >> models? >> >> André >> > > Do you know what propositional logic is? > then that is one way to avoid models. Propositional calculus uses models. It's also extremely limited. André -- To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-04 18:42 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <112c5os$ksm0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646182 |
On 7/4/2026 5:11 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: > On 2026-07-04 15:36, olcott wrote: >> On 7/4/2026 4:29 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>> On 2026-07-04 14:58, olcott wrote: >>>> On 7/4/2026 11:59 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>> On 2026-07-04 10:44, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 7/4/2026 10:08 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>> On 2026-07-04 07:21, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/4/2026 1:47 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 03/07/2026 18:04, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> P ⇒ Q >>>>>>>>>> P → Q >>>>>>>>>> P ⊃ Q >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> are all abolished and replaced with the binary >>>>>>>>>> form of logical necessity: P □ Q >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There is no 'binary form of logical necessity. >>>>>> >>>>>> That is why I just created one. >>>>> >>>>> But you didn't define it. >>>>> >>>>>>> □ is a unary operator and an expression like P □ Q makes >>>>>>> absolutely no sense. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Q is a necessary consequence of P makes perfect sense >>>>>> and corrects a fundamental error in the definition of >>>>>> valid deductive inference. >>>>> >>>>> That would normally be written as □(P → Q), >>>> >>>> That does not perfectly preserve the complete >>>> necessity between P and Q. >>> >>> What on earth does it mean for there to be a "complete necessity >>> between P and Q". Necessity applies to propositions. It doesn't hold >>> *between* things. >>> >>> □(P → Q) means that Q is necessarily implied by P. If you mean >>> something other than that you're really going to have to clarify what >>> you mean. >>> >>>> P □ Q P → Q >>>> 0 ? 0 0 1 0 >>>> 0 ? 1 0 1 1 >>>> 1 0 0 1 0 0 >>>> 1 1 1 1 1 1 >>>> Q is a necessary consequence of P >>>> is the same as English If P then Q >>>> (a) false when P is true and Q is false >>>> (b) true when P is true and Q is true >>>> (c) otherwise does not have a truth value. >>> >>> So again your veering into the territory of three-valued logic. If a >>> truth table contains any symbol other than T or F, you're dealing >>> with a three or more valued logic which means you have to completely >>> redefine every single logical operator before you can proceed. >>> >> >> The English if P then Q only actually tells you >> P(true) then necessarily Q(true) >> Q(false) then necessarily P(false) >> IT DOES NOT TELL YOU MORE THAN THIS AND >> IT IS STUPID MISTAKE TO ASSUME OTHERWISE >> THE WAY THAT IMPLICATION STUPIDLY DOES. > > You're introducing the word 'necessarily' here without any attempt to > explain what is meant by this (by you). > I always use the ordinary English meaning. If P is true then Q is impossibly false. If Q is false the P is impossibly true. > What is the difference between > > a) Q is a necessary consequence of P. > b) Q is a consequence of P > > Give an example where b holds true but where a is false. If you can't do > that, then your use of 'necessary' is completely meaningless verbiage. > If someone smacks you in the face then you were hit in the face. If you were NOT hit in the face then someone did not smack you in the face. >>> And there's nothing about the above table which in any way captures >>> the meaning of 'necessity' so it's entirely unclear why you want to >>> use the □ symbol here. Your '□' doesn't have any relation to >>> necessity any more than '→' does above. >>> >>> Also note that formal logic is *not* c++. There's no such thing as >>> operator overloading, so you can't take a unary operator and use it >>> for some ill-defined binary operation as well. You need a new symbol >>> since □ is already taken. >>> >>> P □ Q makes as much sense as P ¬ Q or P ∀ Q >>> >>>>> So how would you interpret 'necessity' without models? >>> >>> I note you didn't answer this. The notion of necessity in modal logic >>> is intrinsically tied to model theory. >>> >>> How exactly are you defining 'necessity' if you're not making use of >>> models? >>> >>> André >>> >> >> Do you know what propositional logic is? >> then that is one way to avoid models. > > Propositional calculus uses models. It's also extremely limited. > > André > Are you referring to truth tables as models? -- 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 | André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-04 17:57 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <112c6la$i5ad$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646183 |
On 2026-07-04 17:42, olcott wrote: > On 7/4/2026 5:11 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >> On 2026-07-04 15:36, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/4/2026 4:29 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>> On 2026-07-04 14:58, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 7/4/2026 11:59 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>> On 2026-07-04 10:44, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/4/2026 10:08 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2026-07-04 07:21, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 7/4/2026 1:47 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 03/07/2026 18:04, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> P ⇒ Q >>>>>>>>>>> P → Q >>>>>>>>>>> P ⊃ Q >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> are all abolished and replaced with the binary >>>>>>>>>>> form of logical necessity: P □ Q >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There is no 'binary form of logical necessity. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That is why I just created one. >>>>>> >>>>>> But you didn't define it. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> □ is a unary operator and an expression like P □ Q makes >>>>>>>> absolutely no sense. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Q is a necessary consequence of P makes perfect sense >>>>>>> and corrects a fundamental error in the definition of >>>>>>> valid deductive inference. >>>>>> >>>>>> That would normally be written as □(P → Q), >>>>> >>>>> That does not perfectly preserve the complete >>>>> necessity between P and Q. >>>> >>>> What on earth does it mean for there to be a "complete necessity >>>> between P and Q". Necessity applies to propositions. It doesn't hold >>>> *between* things. >>>> >>>> □(P → Q) means that Q is necessarily implied by P. If you mean >>>> something other than that you're really going to have to clarify >>>> what you mean. >>>> >>>>> P □ Q P → Q >>>>> 0 ? 0 0 1 0 >>>>> 0 ? 1 0 1 1 >>>>> 1 0 0 1 0 0 >>>>> 1 1 1 1 1 1 >>>>> Q is a necessary consequence of P >>>>> is the same as English If P then Q >>>>> (a) false when P is true and Q is false >>>>> (b) true when P is true and Q is true >>>>> (c) otherwise does not have a truth value. >>>> >>>> So again your veering into the territory of three-valued logic. If a >>>> truth table contains any symbol other than T or F, you're dealing >>>> with a three or more valued logic which means you have to completely >>>> redefine every single logical operator before you can proceed. >>>> >>> >>> The English if P then Q only actually tells you >>> P(true) then necessarily Q(true) >>> Q(false) then necessarily P(false) >>> IT DOES NOT TELL YOU MORE THAN THIS AND >>> IT IS STUPID MISTAKE TO ASSUME OTHERWISE >>> THE WAY THAT IMPLICATION STUPIDLY DOES. >> >> You're introducing the word 'necessarily' here without any attempt to >> explain what is meant by this (by you). >> > > I always use the ordinary English meaning. > If P is true then Q is impossibly false. > If Q is false the P is impossibly true. 'impossibly false' and 'impossibly true' aren't ordinary English. >> What is the difference between >> >> a) Q is a necessary consequence of P. >> b) Q is a consequence of P >> >> Give an example where b holds true but where a is false. If you can't >> do that, then your use of 'necessary' is completely meaningless verbiage. >> > > If someone smacks you in the face then > you were hit in the face. > > If you were NOT hit in the face then > someone did not smack you in the face. I asked for an example illustrating the different between 'necessary consequence' and mere 'consequence'. The two examples above don't even mention the word 'necessary'. >>>> And there's nothing about the above table which in any way captures >>>> the meaning of 'necessity' so it's entirely unclear why you want to >>>> use the □ symbol here. Your '□' doesn't have any relation to >>>> necessity any more than '→' does above. >>>> >>>> Also note that formal logic is *not* c++. There's no such thing as >>>> operator overloading, so you can't take a unary operator and use it >>>> for some ill-defined binary operation as well. You need a new symbol >>>> since □ is already taken. >>>> >>>> P □ Q makes as much sense as P ¬ Q or P ∀ Q >>>> >>>>>> So how would you interpret 'necessity' without models? >>>> >>>> I note you didn't answer this. The notion of necessity in modal >>>> logic is intrinsically tied to model theory. >>>> >>>> How exactly are you defining 'necessity' if you're not making use of >>>> models? >>>> >>>> André >>>> >>> >>> Do you know what propositional logic is? >>> then that is one way to avoid models. >> >> Propositional calculus uses models. It's also extremely limited. >> >> André >> > > Are you referring to truth tables as models? No. André -- To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.math
csiph-web