Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.logic > #347527

Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction

From André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid>
Newsgroups sci.logic, comp.theory, sci.math, comp.ai.philosophy, alt.philosophy
Subject Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction
Date 2026-07-04 18:43 -0600
Organization Christians and Atheists United Against Creeping Agnosticism
Message-ID <112c9bc$i5ad$4@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References (26 earlier) <112c5os$ksm0$1@dont-email.me> <112c6la$i5ad$2@dont-email.me> <112c796$lhii$1@dont-email.me> <112c860$i5ad$3@dont-email.me> <112c8nv$maa9$1@dont-email.me>

Cross-posted to 5 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On 2026-07-04 18:33, olcott wrote:
> On 7/4/2026 7:23 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2026-07-04 18:08, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/4/2026 6:57 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Tell me whether or not the numerical square root
>>> of a dead chicken can exist and why or why not.
>>> You must not start with any numerical value such
>>> as the weight of the dead chicken. You are only
>>> allowed to use its actual dead body.
>>
>> What does the above have to do with my claim that neither 'impossibly 
>> false' nor 'impossibly true' are English. 
> 
> You did not seem to understand the meaning of the word impossible.

You didn't use the word 'impossible'. You used the word 'impossibly' 
which is a different word. I understand the meaning of both perfectly well.

>> In English, 'impossibly x' does not mean 'not possible to be x'. 
>> 'Impossibly' is an *itensifier* with a meaning of extremely. So 
>> 'impossibly true' would mean 'extremely true', which makes no sense 
>> since true is not a gradient concept.
>>
>>>>>> 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'.
>>
>> This question was the central point of my post and you have ignored 
>> it. I maintain that when you use the term 'necessary' your just 
>> tossing in a meaningless word for no reason. If you can answer the 
>> above question you will show me wrong.
>>
> 
> The modal operators □ and ◊
> 
> 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

The modal operators don't *have* truth tables anymore than any other 
quantifier does, and whatever it is you're trying to convey by '□' above 
applies only to a three-valued logic and certainly has nothing to do 
with necessity.

> If Q is a necessary consequence of P then
> we are not allowed to infer anything from ~P

Again, you're tossing out the word 'necessary' without any indication 
that it has any particular meaning in your usage. What you write above 
is just as applicable to plain ordinary implication without the word 
'necessary. So again I ask, can you give an example where (a) hold true 
but where (b) does not.

a) Q is a consequence of P
b) Q is a necessary consequence of P.

Unless it is possible for the above two statements to have different 
truth values, the word 'necessary' is serving absolutely no purpose.

In modal logic, P → Q and □(P → Q) mean distinctly different things with 
distinctly different meanings and these meanings are well-defined within 
that framework. In your usage it is completely unclear what difference, 
if any, holds between the two.

André

>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>> Truth Tables ARE Propositional Model Theory
>>
>> No they're not. Truth tables are used to define the basic operators in 
>> a truth-functional logic.
>>
>> Please evaluate the propositional calculus expression P → Q. Without 
>> knowing what P or Q stand for you cannot do this. The model tells you 
>> what P and Q actually mean making it possible to assign a truth value 
>> to P → Q.
>>
>> André
>>
> 
> In propositional logic they are only Boolean variables
> with zero additional meaning besides true and false.
> If you think otherwise then cite a source.
> 

-- 
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail 
service.

Back to sci.logic | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-25 20:32 -0500
  Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-26 09:49 +0300
    Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 07:49 -0500
      Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 09:14 -0400
        Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 08:17 -0500
          Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 09:22 -0400
            Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 09:24 -0400
              Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 12:09 -0400
              Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 07:18 -0700
            Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-27 10:11 +0300
      Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-27 10:08 +0300
        Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 10:11 -0500
          Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 13:54 -0400
            Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 13:03 -0500
              Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 14:24 -0400
                Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 13:29 -0500
                Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 14:34 -0400
                Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 18:30 -0400
                Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 17:40 -0500
                Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 18:52 -0400
                Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 18:22 -0500
                Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 19:30 -0400
                Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 18:56 -0500
                Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 21:08 -0400
                Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 20:24 -0500
                Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 21:29 -0400
                Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 20:40 -0500
                Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 21:42 -0400
                Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 20:49 -0500
                Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 21:53 -0400
                Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 22:02 -0400
                Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 22:23 -0500
                Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 23:34 -0400
                Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-28 12:23 +0300
                Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-28 23:56 -0400
                Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-28 23:13 -0500
                Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-29 08:08 -0400
                Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-29 08:17 -0500
                Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-29 09:23 -0400
                Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-29 09:00 -0500
                Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-29 10:01 -0400
                Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-30 11:48 +0300
                Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 09:37 -0500
                Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-01 09:46 +0300
                Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 04:33 -0700
                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> - 2026-07-03 09:50 -0500
                Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-04 11:15 +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 Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-07-06 13:06 +0100
                Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-07-06 19:40 +0100
                Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-04 11:16 +0300
                Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 12:11 -0500
                Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-06 10:53 +0300
          Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-28 12:04 +0300
  Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-07-06 12:49 +0100
    Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 08:45 -0500
      Re: William T. Parry gets rid of Disjunction introduction dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 09:50 -0400

csiph-web