1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. SCI.LOGIC

  • Re: Claude.ai provides reasoning why I may have defeated the convention

    From joes@21:1/5 to All on Thu Jul 10 14:38:51 2025
    Am Thu, 10 Jul 2025 09:09:00 -0500 schrieb olcott:
    On 7/10/2025 4:02 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2025-07-09 12:31:59 +0000, olcott said:

    It is a truism the the POE violates the requirement of truth
    preserving operations. People that learn things by rote do not notice
    this.
    The requirement of truth preserving operations only applies to proofs.
    According to the POE:
    (a) The Moon is made of green cheese and (b) the Moon does not exist
    proves that (c) Donald Trump is the Christ.
    Correct. Since the moon is not, in fact, made of green cheese, this does
    not allow you deduce that Trump is christ (even if he were). It is a bit unintuitive, granted.

    --
    Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
    It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tristan Wibberley@21:1/5 to olcott on Tue Jul 15 14:08:04 2025
    On 10/07/2025 15:09, olcott wrote:

    All of logic is a mental abstraction
    with no physical existence.

    Copyright Tristan Wibberley. All Rights reserved.

    Nonsense! Logistic formal systems are entirely about symbol manipulation
    and avoid admitting mental abstraction, they're wholly physical although
    some of them are contingent on the availability of infinitely large
    amounts of paper and ink. Try telling me about a theorem with no
    symbols, not even in brain structure, neither spread over time nor space!

    The place people get muddled up is thinking that ontological assignments
    are part of the system.

    That's why they think systems can be inconsistent instead of merely indiscriminate. They think one of the objects of the system is logical
    negation even when it isn't AND they think that the fact they think it
    also makes it so for everyone. Probably because they conceive of a
    logistic system via embedding in another system, formal or informal, and
    are unable to do it algebraically so they "define" one of the symbols to
    be negation instead of inferring it from the symbol's properties.

    The reality is the system they think inconsistent is either informal
    (and therefore not logistic) or it merely doesn't contain any
    propositions distinct from its theorems.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)