Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Claude.ai provides reasoning why I may have defeated the conventional HP proof
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2025 12:02:14 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 69
Message-ID: <104nvim$pg20$1@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> <104j9bp$3jrpl$3@dont-email.me> <104l99t$52fb$1@dont-email.me> <104lnfv$7l4q$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2025 11:02:14 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1bbbce4af4afd9c6d573b22ed0f6eaac";
	logging-data="835648"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19elOxrQUKTaVdW5EwPXzqA"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:VOjcVzzY7nJHjzXaQZ/e1aWHP2k=

On 2025-07-09 12:31:59 +0000, olcott said:

> On 7/9/2025 3:29 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-07-08 14:18:32 +0000, olcott said:
>> 
>>> 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.
>> 
>> Your straw man logic is incorrect. Whenever ordinary logic has been
>> compared to reality it is found to be correct.

> Logic belongs to analytical truth, reality belongs to
> empirical truth. They are not the same.

Nevertheless, ordinary logic is empirially valid.

> 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.
In that context the requirement can be further restricted. A small
set of inference rules, even a singlet, is sufficient if you have s
sufficiently rich set of axiom rules.

-- 
Mikko