Path: nntp.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Claude.ai provides reasoning why I may have defeated the
 conventional HP proof
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2025 22:16:09 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <97405b4afc3b8a4a0c4c9a7e395c2aee318ca6c1@i2pn2.org>
References: <1049cr4$10io1$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$3@dont-email.me>
 <104nvim$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>
 <1054hk6$3s0eq$7@dont-email.me>
 <032e7616411f133393e33b74065d29d8105e2f94@i2pn2.org>
 <1055i1e$2t13$2@dont-email.me>
 <07e952139a3fdc5fed0db5f1e31b65a5860d0eb4@i2pn2.org>
 <10570dd$c8u5$7@dont-email.me>
 <1e89e8a077839c0417a9f57491dd146b5ada414c@i2pn2.org>
 <1058g1d$pn5l$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2025 02:16:37 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="959202"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <1058g1d$pn5l$4@dont-email.me>

On 7/16/25 11:21 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/16/2025 6:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/15/25 9:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/15/2025 6:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 7/15/25 8:37 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/15/2025 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/14/25 11:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/14/2025 9:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/14/25 3:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2025 6:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/11/25 1:12 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2025 11:42 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-07-10 22:29, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2025 10:58 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-07-10 19:58, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/25 10:09 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rigth, but only because a side affect of (a) is that the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moon must exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really, the problem here is that Olcott fails to 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distinguish between the truth of a conditional statement 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the truth of the consequent of a conditional 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement. They are not the same thing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ((X & ~X) implies Y) is necessarily true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is not the exact meaning of these words
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> What is not the exact meaning of which words?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *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).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And what is wrong with the analysis given one that page:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> André G. Isaak's paraphrase of this:
>>>>>>>>> "any statement can be proven from a contradiction"
>>>>>>>>> to this:
>>>>>>>>> ((X & ~X) implies Y) is necessarily true.
>>>>>>>>> Is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Here is the correct paraphrase: ∀x (⊥ ⊢ x).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And Yes that can be PROVEN
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The givens, Let A be the statement in contradiction, thus
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1) A is True, and
>>>>>>>> 2) ~A is True, or equivalently A is False
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That simply ignores the law of non-contradiction.
>>>>>>> How the F is ignoring this law not nuts?
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it is the REASON for it. Notice it says:
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> the proposition and its negation cannot both
>>>>> be simultaneously true, e.g. the proposition
>>>>> "the house is white" and its negation
>>>>> "the house is not white" are mutually exclusive.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Right, because if they were both true, we would have a 
>>>
>>> psychotic break from reality.
>>>
>>
>> Yep, that is what you are going through, but can't recognize it.
>>
>> Mote, it seems your mental model of the universe can't handle the 
>> possiblity that its model isn't 100% correct, but since you are a 
>> finite being, it can't be 100% correct, so you just ignore reality and 
>> follow your model.
>>
>> That is your psychotic break.
>>
>> Sane people can look at facts and see their error.
>>
> 
> Then people that accept the POE are insane at least
> on this one point.
> 

No, people that deny it fall prey to it.

I guess you don't understand that systems DO exist that fail to follow 
the law of non-contradiciton. Of course, some of the other properies in 
them are different so they might not blow up.

For instance, "Race" in earlier times. In many