Path: nntp.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Claude.ai provides reasoning why I may have defeated the
 conventional HP proof
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2025 10:14:02 +0800
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 83
Message-ID: <1295ab18654a17bbcb810340e67f3ab89bd1028a.camel@gmail.com>
References: <1049cr4$10io1$1@dont-email.me> <104l99t$52fb$1@dont-email.me>
	 <104lnfv$7l4q$3@dont-email.me> <104nvim$pg20$1@dont-email.me>
	 <104ohhs$t0u4$2@dont-email.me>
	 <552bda60815dad8175c54eab402e0acc53101155@i2pn2.org>
	 <104q24q$1ajbp$1@dont-email.me> <104q3vi$1atq6$1@dont-email.me>
	 <104q4ni$1b4t7$1@dont-email.me> <104q6gf$1bcq0$1@dont-email.me>
	 <f2cbb68fe579b5dc2438377454298861eaef0577@i2pn2.org>
	 <1053l0g$3irf7$1@dont-email.me>
	 <37294733af66d0d8acba8f954e48e497650788ce@i2pn2.org>
	 <1054ged$3s0eq$1@dont-email.me>
	 <d6e818fc3e976909598891fe7c785b16634a544e@i2pn2.org>
	 <1055i73$2t13$3@dont-email.me> <1056a57$8j2u$1@dont-email.me>
	 <1056cam$8lvo$1@dont-email.me> <1056hhq$a36q$1@dont-email.me>
	 <1056ojc$bgl7$1@dont-email.me> <1056p63$a36q$2@dont-email.me>
	 <1056pls$bniv$1@dont-email.me> <1056s1u$a36q$3@dont-email.me>
	 <1056sc4$c5qd$1@dont-email.me> <1056sqi$a36q$4@dont-email.me>
	 <1056tn7$c8u5$1@dont-email.me>
	 <79007223078899d19c7bdd2f5369e78ed1423448.camel@gmail.com>
	 <1056vh9$c8u5$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Injection-Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2025 04:14:03 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="46dce70ce57f862efe41d66f19ee6982";
	logging-data="408565"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18coibuMw3oP3qVMprGb3AZ"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.56.2 (3.56.2-1.fc42)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:smJv6j3/ceNW3KpaTjZuQfC0U/g=
In-Reply-To: <1056vh9$c8u5$3@dont-email.me>

On Tue, 2025-07-15 at 20:33 -0500, olcott wrote:
> On 7/15/2025 8:13 PM, wij wrote:
> > On Tue, 2025-07-15 at 20:02 -0500, olcott wrote:
> > > On 7/15/2025 7:47 PM, Andr=C3=A9 G. Isaak wrote:
> > > > On 2025-07-15 18:39, olcott wrote:
> > > > > On 7/15/2025 7:34 PM, Andr=C3=A9 G. Isaak wrote:
> > > > > > On 2025-07-15 17:53, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > On 7/15/2025 6:45 PM, Andr=C3=A9 G. Isaak wrote:
> > > > > > > > On 2025-07-15 17:35, olcott wrote:
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > You still make the same mistake with the implication oper=
ator.
> > > > > > > > > That has always been the wrong operator for PROVES.
> > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > You're being an idiot. The principle of explosion can be st=
ated
> > > > > > > > either in terms of implication or proof. I prefer implicati=
on. I'm
> > > > > > > > not mistaking one symbol for another. I'm saying exactly wh=
at I
> > > > > > > > intend to say.
> > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > Andr=C3=A9
> > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > Yet implication is not even truth preserving.
> > > > > > >=20
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > > You seem to be using some private definition of 'truth preservi=
ng'.
> > > > > > Did you get that one from claude.ai as well?
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > > Andr=C3=A9
> > > > > >=20
> > > > >=20
> > > > > the characteristic of an argument where,
> > > > > if the premises are true, the conclusion
> > > > > must also be true.
> > > > >=20
> > > > > When the antecedent is false the consequent
> > > > > can be true with the "=E2=86=92" operator.
> > > >=20
> > > > And how would that make it non-truth preserving?
> > > >=20
> > >=20
> > > If you start with falsity end end up with truth then
> > > the operation was not truth preserving.
> > >=20
> > > If there are tens of thousands of textbooks that
> > > disagree then they are necessarily incorrect when
> > > we go by the compositional meaning of the terms
> > > of "truth" and "preserving". To make a term of the
> > > art meaning that disagrees with the compositional
> > > meaning has always been dishonest.
> > >=20
> >=20
> > This is a typical "learn-by-rote".
> > The Halting Problem is clear... there is always a counter-case an
> > assumed H cannot solve.
> >=20
>=20
> The classic textbook example is NOT one of those cases.

Yes, they should say the same thing but in abstract ways.
If not, it's the book's problem not the HP theorem.

> > This is FACT, not influenced by ANY theory/rule: "1+1=3D2", Logic,..., =
have no
> > effect on this fact.
> >=20
> > > > You're very confused. Since you seem to trust/overrely on wikipedia=
, you
> > > > can check against the following:
> > > >=20
> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_function#Algebraic_properties
> > > >=20
> > > > Andr=C3=A9
> > > >=20
> > > >=20
> > >=20
> >=20
>=20