Path: nntp.eternal-september.org!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: Fri, 11 Jul 2025 10:30:35 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <104ramr$1icss$4@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>
 <5e2d28477694fbca79e32781de1faf97f3fd29c0@i2pn2.org>
 <104ltkd$7l4q$14@dont-email.me> <104nvnt$pgpb$1@dont-email.me>
 <104ohjj$t0u4$3@dont-email.me> <104qiqu$1dq8o$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2025 17:30:35 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="77a1f53edba794dcd0b3794096040439";
	logging-data="1651612"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/o+/XzADySfsZQe7bOYn5u"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:XGSLGkzPuzc5i7l2PBa+mdJTydU=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250711-6, 7/11/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <104qiqu$1dq8o$1@dont-email.me>

On 7/11/2025 3:43 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2025-07-10 14:09:55 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 7/10/2025 4:05 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2025-07-09 14:16:44 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 7/9/2025 9:04 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>> Am Wed, 09 Jul 2025 07:31:59 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>> 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:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>> Should only false conclusions be derivable from false premises?
>>>>
>>>> False premises must be immediately rejected.
>>>
>>> Often one must work with sentences that are not known to be true but
>>> not known to be false, either.
>>>
>>
>> Then contradiction proves falsehood.
> 
> That's right: if a contradiction is inferred then at least one of the
> preimises is false. But that does not tell which premise is false.
> 

*This Wikipedia quote*
On 7/10/2025 11:29 PM, olcott wrote:
 >    the principle of explosion is the law according to which
 >    *any statement can be proven from a contradiction*
 > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion

Here is the exact meaning of:
*any statement can be proven from a contradiction*
∀x (⊥ ⊢ x).

Is proven to be incorrect in that it diverges
from truth preserving operations.

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