Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Claude.ai provides reasoning why I may have defeated the
 conventional HP proof
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2025 09:18:32 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 52
Message-ID: <104j9bp$3jrpl$3@dont-email.me>
References: <1049cr4$10io1$1@dont-email.me> <104apto$1d6ik$1@dont-email.me>
 <104bfom$1hqln$3@dont-email.me> <104dc7p$22du8$1@dont-email.me>
 <104e2cd$2852a$2@dont-email.me> <104fvvp$2qvbi$1@dont-email.me>
 <104gjo8$2uc68$3@dont-email.me> <104ii2r$3egqg$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2025 16:18:33 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ce78bb31887330829f2f742b964ba468";
	logging-data="3796789"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19jA8pIkbu6osopzdm6BOPd"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Ki5dljAhuLGMaKAjwFLyea+EZCs=
In-Reply-To: <104ii2r$3egqg$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250708-6, 7/8/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean

On 7/8/2025 2:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2025-07-07 13:57:28 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 7/7/2025 3:20 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2025-07-06 14:48:45 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 7/6/2025 3:30 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-07-05 15:18:46 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 7/5/2025 4:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2025-07-04 20:16:34 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://claude.ai/share/48aab578-aec3-44a5-8bb3-6851e0f8b02e
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Perhaps an artificial idiot can think better than you but it does
>>>>>>> not think better than most participants of these discussions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yet you cannot point out any actual error.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no error in your above quoted words.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> What is not provable is not analytic truth.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I totally agree. Not only must it be provable it must
>>>>>> be provable semantically not merely syntactically.
>>>>>
>>>>> In order to prove anything a proof must be syntactically correct.
>>>>> Then the conclusion is semantically true if the premises are.
>>>>
>>>> Not exactly. Some of logic is wrong.
>>>
>>> There is no example where ordinary logic derives a false conclusion from
>>> true premises. Other logics may contain mistakes so they should not be
>>> used unless proven valid.
>>
>> The one that I have in mind derives a true conclusion
>> from false premises.
> 
> True conclusion from false premeises is fairly common. But that is not
> relevant. 

It proves that logic is fundamentally incorrect on this point.
Logic must be a sequence of truth preserving operations or it is wrong.

> A proof has no significance in a situation where one or more
> of he premises is false.
> 


-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer