On 6/3/2026 6:25 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
Every Mom knows that their little kid is lying
when they contradict themselves.
Mathematicians think that:
"any statement can be proven from a contradiction" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
because they removed semantics from logic since the syllogism.
This makes mathematicians more stupid than every Mom.
On 6/3/2026 6:25 PM, "Ross Finlayson" wrote:
Every Mom knows that their little kid is lying
when they contradict themselves.
Mathematicians think that:
"any statement can be proven from a contradiction" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
because they removed semantics from logic since the syllogism.
This makes mathematicians more stupid than every Mom.
On 06/03/2026 06:38 PM, polcott wrote:
On 6/3/2026 6:25 PM, "Ross Finlayson" wrote:
Every Mom knows that their little kid is lying
when they contradict themselves.
Mathematicians think that:
"any statement can be proven from a contradiction"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
because they removed semantics from logic since the syllogism.
This makes mathematicians more stupid than every Mom.
I suppose that "everybody knows that Kid is a little liar",
or Burse-bots generally enough, then though that
the above is a mis-attribution, since I did not write it.
On 04/06/2026 04:38, polcott wrote:
On 6/3/2026 6:25 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
Every Mom knows that their little kid is lying
when they contradict themselves.
Mathematicians think that:
"any statement can be proven from a contradiction"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
because they removed semantics from logic since the syllogism.
This makes mathematicians more stupid than every Mom.
The principle that "any statement can be prove from a contradiction"
does not apply to syllogisms.
THsyllogistic logic is too weak for
that. However, the principle is empirically true because we have
never observed a situation where a contradiction is true but some
other claim is not true.
On 06/03/2026 06:38 PM, polcott wrote:
On 6/3/2026 6:25 PM, "Ross Finlayson" wrote:
Every Mom knows that their little kid is lying
when they contradict themselves.
Mathematicians think that:
"any statement can be proven from a contradiction"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
because they removed semantics from logic since the syllogism.
This makes mathematicians more stupid than every Mom.
I suppose that "everybody knows that Kid is a little liar",
or Burse-bots generally enough, then though that
the above is a mis-attribution, since I did not write it.
On 6/4/2026 2:36 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 04/06/2026 04:38, polcott wrote:
On 6/3/2026 6:25 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
Every Mom knows that their little kid is lying
when they contradict themselves.
Mathematicians think that:
"any statement can be proven from a contradiction"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
because they removed semantics from logic since the syllogism.
This makes mathematicians more stupid than every Mom.
The principle that "any statement can be prove from a contradiction"
does not apply to syllogisms.
It never has correctly applied to anything.
Mathematicians are morons on this point.
On 2026-06-04 07:34, polcott wrote:
On 6/4/2026 2:36 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 04/06/2026 04:38, polcott wrote:
On 6/3/2026 6:25 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
Every Mom knows that their little kid is lying
when they contradict themselves.
Mathematicians think that:
"any statement can be proven from a contradiction"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
because they removed semantics from logic since the syllogism.
This makes mathematicians more stupid than every Mom.
The principle that "any statement can be prove from a contradiction"
does not apply to syllogisms.
It never has correctly applied to anything.
Mathematicians are morons on this point.
No. You just don't understand the principle. If I assert that 'if A then
B' is true, I am *not* asserting that B is true.
I am only asserting
that it is true in those cases where A true. In cases where A *cannot*
be true, I am saying nothing about the truth of B.
This shows up in ordinary English. Consider the following dialogue:
John: One day I will be president.
Mary: When Hell freezes over!
Mary is asserting the *truth* of the implication 'If Hell freezes over,
then John will become president'. She assumes that Hell *cannot* ever
freeze over, and thus is not asserting that John will become president.
When we add in some pragmatics (the Gricean principle of relevance: why
did she choose an implication involving something assumed to be
impossible?) we can infer that Mary intends to mean that John will
*never* become president. She is employing the principle of explosion.
André
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion#Proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disjunction_introduction
is the mistake P ∴ P ∨ Q // pulls Q out of no where
This is not how correct reasoning works.It is "correct reasoning" in the context of CLASSICAL logic.
On 6/4/2026 11:02 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-06-04 07:34, polcott wrote:
On 6/4/2026 2:36 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 04/06/2026 04:38, polcott wrote:
On 6/3/2026 6:25 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
Every Mom knows that their little kid is lying
when they contradict themselves.
Mathematicians think that:
"any statement can be proven from a contradiction"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
because they removed semantics from logic since the syllogism.
This makes mathematicians more stupid than every Mom.
The principle that "any statement can be prove from a contradiction"
does not apply to syllogisms.
It never has correctly applied to anything.
Mathematicians are morons on this point.
No. You just don't understand the principle. If I assert that 'if A
then B' is true, I am *not* asserting that B is true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion#Proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disjunction_introduction
is the mistake P ∴ P ∨ Q // pulls Q out of no where
This is not how correct reasoning works.
I am only asserting that it is true in those cases where A true. In
cases where A *cannot* be true, I am saying nothing about the truth of B.
This shows up in ordinary English. Consider the following dialogue:
John: One day I will be president.
Mary: When Hell freezes over!
Mary is asserting the *truth* of the implication 'If Hell freezes
over, then John will become president'. She assumes that Hell *cannot*
ever freeze over, and thus is not asserting that John will become
president. When we add in some pragmatics (the Gricean principle of
relevance: why did she choose an implication involving something
assumed to be impossible?) we can infer that Mary intends to mean that
John will *never* become president. She is employing the principle of
explosion.
Am 04.06.2026 um 18:42 schrieb polcott:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion#Proof
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disjunction_introduction
is the mistake P ∴ P ∨ Q // pulls Q out of no where
No, that's not "a mistake".
Hint: For any statements P and Q: If P is true, then the statement 'P v
Q' is true too (by the semantics of 'v' in CLASSICAL logic).
This is not how correct reasoning works.It is "correct reasoning" in the context of CLASSICAL logic.
If you don't like that, you may just chose a non-classical logic, say, relevance logic:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relevance_logic
Am 04.06.2026 um 18:42 schrieb polcott:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion#Proof
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disjunction_introduction
is the mistake P ∴ P ∨ Q // pulls Q out of no where
No, that's not "a mistake".
On 2026-06-04 10:42, polcott wrote:
On 6/4/2026 11:02 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-06-04 07:34, polcott wrote:
On 6/4/2026 2:36 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 04/06/2026 04:38, polcott wrote:
On 6/3/2026 6:25 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
Every Mom knows that their little kid is lying
when they contradict themselves.
Mathematicians think that:
"any statement can be proven from a contradiction"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
because they removed semantics from logic since the syllogism.
This makes mathematicians more stupid than every Mom.
The principle that "any statement can be prove from a contradiction" >>>>> does not apply to syllogisms.
It never has correctly applied to anything.
Mathematicians are morons on this point.
No. You just don't understand the principle. If I assert that 'if A
then B' is true, I am *not* asserting that B is true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion#Proof
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disjunction_introduction
is the mistake P ∴ P ∨ Q // pulls Q out of no where
This is not how correct reasoning works.
So your problem isn't with the POE but with the rule of disjunction introduction?
Am 04.06.2026 um 18:42 schrieb polcott:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion#Proof
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disjunction_introduction
is the mistake P ∴ P ∨ Q // pulls Q out of no where
No, that's not "a mistake".
Hint: For any statements P and Q: If P is true, then the statement 'P v
Q' is true too (by the semantics of 'v' in CLASSICAL logic).
This is not how correct reasoning works.It is "correct reasoning" in the context of CLASSICAL logic.
If you don't like that, you may just chose a non-classical logic, say, relevance logic:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relevance_logic
On 6/4/2026 12:13 PM, Moebius wrote:
Am 04.06.2026 um 18:42 schrieb polcott:When attempting to prove the semantic entailment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion#Proof
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disjunction_introduction
is the mistake P ∴ P ∨ Q // pulls Q out of no where
No, that's not "a mistake".
of an expression one cannot simply pull Q out of
no where and pop it into the reasoning.
On 06/04/2026 10:13 AM, Moebius wrote:
Am 04.06.2026 um 18:42 schrieb polcott:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion#Proof
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disjunction_introduction
is the mistake P ∴ P ∨ Q // pulls Q out of no where
No, that's not "a mistake".
Hint: For any statements P and Q: If P is true, then the statement 'P v
Q' is true too (by the semantics of 'v' in CLASSICAL logic).
This is not how correct reasoning works.It is "correct reasoning" in the context of CLASSICAL logic.
If you don't like that, you may just chose a non-classical logic, say,
relevance logic:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relevance_logic
In a modal world: relevance logic chooses you.
(Not the other way around.)
How about
"this stopped clock is correct" => "this stopped clock is not correct".
Wrong twice a day, ..., every day.
On 06/04/2026 10:13 AM, Moebius wrote:
Am 04.06.2026 um 18:42 schrieb polcott:In a modal world: relevance logic chooses you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion#ProofNo, that's not "a mistake".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disjunction_introduction
is the mistake P ∴ P ∨ Q // pulls Q out of no where
Hint: For any statements P and Q: If P is true, then the statement 'P v
Q' is true too (by the semantics of 'v' in CLASSICAL logic).
This is not how correct reasoning works.It is "correct reasoning" in the context of CLASSICAL logic.
If you don't like that, you may just chose a non-classical logic, say,
relevance logic:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relevance_logic
(Not the other way around.)
Am 04.06.2026 um 18:42 schrieb polcott:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion#Proof
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disjunction_introduction
is the mistake P ∴ P ∨ Q // pulls Q out of no where
No, that's not "a mistake".
Hint: For any statements P and Q: If P is true, then the statement 'P v
Q' is true too (by the semantics of 'v' in CLASSICAL logic).
This is not how correct reasoning works.It is "correct reasoning" in the context of CLASSICAL logic.
If you don't like that, you may just chose a non-classical logic, say, relevance logic:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relevance_logic
Am 04.06.2026 um 20:00 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
On 06/04/2026 10:13 AM, Moebius wrote:
Am 04.06.2026 um 18:42 schrieb polcott:In a modal world: relevance logic chooses you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion#ProofNo, that's not "a mistake".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disjunction_introduction
is the mistake P ∴ P ∨ Q // pulls Q out of no where
Hint: For any statements P and Q: If P is true, then the statement 'P v
Q' is true too (by the semantics of 'v' in CLASSICAL logic).
This is not how correct reasoning works.It is "correct reasoning" in the context of CLASSICAL logic.
If you don't like that, you may just chose a non-classical logic, say,
relevance logic:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relevance_logic
(Not the other way around.)
Holy shit! So I'm a chosen one?
Thanks for pointing this out to me.
On 6/4/2026 12:13 PM, Moebius wrote:
Am 04.06.2026 um 18:42 schrieb polcott:Within [what I -P. Olcott- considers] objectively correct reasoning relevance is mandatory.
No, that's not "a mistake".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion#Proof
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disjunction_introduction
is the mistake P ∴ P ∨ Q // pulls Q out of no where
Hint: For any statements P and Q: If P is true, then the statement 'P
v Q' is true too (by the semantics of 'v' in CLASSICAL logic).
This is not how correct reasoning works.It is "correct reasoning" in the context of CLASSICAL logic.
If you don't like that, you may just chose a non-classical logic, say,
relevance logic:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relevance_logic
On 6/4/2026 12:20 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
So your problem isn't with the POE but with the rule of disjunction
introduction?
Disjunction introduction is a key aspect of the basis
from which POE is derived here:
On 2026-06-04 11:51, olcott wrote:
On 6/4/2026 12:20 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
So your problem isn't with the POE but with the rule of disjunction
introduction?
Disjunction introduction is a key aspect of the basis
from which POE is derived here:
That doesn't answer my question. Do you have issues with the POE, the
rule of disjunction, or both?
On 6/4/2026 1:18 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-06-04 11:51, olcott wrote:It is completely nuts that anyone believed
On 6/4/2026 12:20 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
So your problem isn't with the POE but with the rule of disjunction
introduction?
Disjunction introduction is a key aspect of the basis
from which POE is derived here:
That doesn't answer my question. Do you have issues with the POE, the
rule of disjunction, or both?
"any statement can be proven from a contradiction"
for nearly as much as 1/4 of one second.
[...]--
On 6/4/2026 1:18 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-06-04 11:51, olcott wrote:It is completely nuts that anyone believed
On 6/4/2026 12:20 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
So your problem isn't with the POE but with the rule of disjunction
introduction?
Disjunction introduction is a key aspect of the basis
from which POE is derived here:
That doesn't answer my question. Do you have issues with the POE, the
rule of disjunction, or both?
"any statement can be proven from a contradiction"
for nearly as much as 1/4 of one second.
The reason that so many people made this ridiculous
mistake is that people completely shut off their
minds and took "disjunction introduction" as their
hard-wired programming.
When one completely shuts off one's brain and applies
"disjunction introduction" as their hard-wired programming
then one derives the POE as shown here in step 4: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion#Proof
Am 04.06.2026 um 20:51 schrieb olcott:
On 6/4/2026 1:18 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-06-04 11:51, olcott wrote:It is completely nuts that anyone believed
On 6/4/2026 12:20 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
So your problem isn't with the POE but with the rule of disjunction >>>>> introduction?
Disjunction introduction is a key aspect of the basis
from which POE is derived here:
That doesn't answer my question. Do you have issues with the POE, the
rule of disjunction, or both?
"any statement can be proven from a contradiction"
for nearly as much as 1/4 of one second.
If you say so.
Let's ask ChatGPT!
Q (me): Is it true that "any statement can be proven from a contradiction".
The "Bait and Switch" of Formal Semantics
In linguistics and everyday English, semantics refers to the meaning of words and how those meanings connect.
But in the early 20th century, classical logicians redefined "semantics"
for their mathematical models. In classical logic, the "semantics" of a sentence has absolutely nothing to do with its definitions, concepts, or real-world subjects. The semantic value of a sentence is stripped down
to a single bit of data: True (1) or False (0).
Am 04.06.2026 um 20:51 schrieb olcott:
On 6/4/2026 1:18 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-06-04 11:51, olcott wrote:It is completely nuts that anyone believed
On 6/4/2026 12:20 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
So your problem isn't with the POE but with the rule of disjunction >>>>> introduction?
Disjunction introduction is a key aspect of the basis
from which POE is derived here:
That doesn't answer my question. Do you have issues with the POE, the
rule of disjunction, or both?
"any statement can be proven from a contradiction"
for nearly as much as 1/4 of one second.
If you say so.
Let's ask ChatGPT!
Q (me): Is it true that "any statement can be proven from a contradiction".
On 2026-06-04 13:18, olcott wrote:
The "Bait and Switch" of Formal Semantics
In linguistics and everyday English, semantics refers to the meaning
of words and how those meanings connect.
That's *lexical* semantics, a narrow subfield of semantics.
But in the early 20th century, classical logicians redefined
"semantics" for their mathematical models. In classical logic, the
"semantics" of a sentence has absolutely nothing to do with its
definitions, concepts, or real-world subjects. The semantic value of a
sentence is stripped down to a single bit of data: True (1) or False (0).
I can assure you that linguistics uses much the same definition as mathematics.
André
On 2026-06-04 11:51, olcott wrote:
On 6/4/2026 12:20 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
So your problem isn't with the POE but with the rule of disjunction
introduction?
Disjunction introduction is a key aspect of the basis
from which POE is derived here:
That doesn't answer my question. Do you have issues with the POE, the
rule of disjunction, or both?
Also, it's interesting that you're willing to leave thousands of lines
of text unsnipped in many of your posts, yet immediately snip something
to which you have no response. I'd asked you to comment on the following example:
John: One day I will be president.
Mary: When Hell freezes over!
Mary is asserting the *truth* of the implication 'If Hell freezes over,
then John will become president'. She assumes that Hell *cannot* ever
freeze over, and thus is not asserting that John will become president.
When we add in some pragmatics (the Gricean principle of relevance: why
did she choose an implication involving something assumed to be
impossible?) we can infer that Mary intends to mean that John will
*never* become president. She is employing the principle of explosion.
Is Mary's use of the principle of explosion an error? What's the problem
with it? Do you not think that Mary's statement is the sort of statement
that a reasonable person might make?
André
On 6/4/2026 2:21 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-06-04 13:18, olcott wrote:
The "Bait and Switch" of Formal Semantics
In linguistics and everyday English, semantics refers to the meaning
of words and how those meanings connect.
That's *lexical* semantics, a narrow subfield of semantics.
But in the early 20th century, classical logicians redefined
"semantics" for their mathematical models. In classical logic, the
"semantics" of a sentence has absolutely nothing to do with its
definitions, concepts, or real-world subjects. The semantic value of
a sentence is stripped down to a single bit of data: True (1) or
False (0).
I can assure you that linguistics uses much the same definition as
mathematics.
André
Do you understand how Montague Grammar works, or
do you simply dismiss it out-of-hand as everyone
that is an expert in linguistics does?
On 06/04/2026 11:18 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-06-04 11:51, olcott wrote:
On 6/4/2026 12:20 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
So your problem isn't with the POE but with the rule of disjunction
introduction?
Disjunction introduction is a key aspect of the basis
from which POE is derived here:
That doesn't answer my question. Do you have issues with the POE, the
rule of disjunction, or both?
Also, it's interesting that you're willing to leave thousands of lines
of text unsnipped in many of your posts, yet immediately snip something
to which you have no response. I'd asked you to comment on the following
example:
John: One day I will be president.
Mary: When Hell freezes over!
Mary is asserting the *truth* of the implication 'If Hell freezes over,
then John will become president'. She assumes that Hell *cannot* ever
freeze over, and thus is not asserting that John will become president.
When we add in some pragmatics (the Gricean principle of relevance: why
did she choose an implication involving something assumed to be
impossible?) we can infer that Mary intends to mean that John will
*never* become president. She is employing the principle of explosion.
Is Mary's use of the principle of explosion an error? What's the problem
with it? Do you not think that Mary's statement is the sort of statement
that a reasonable person might make?
André
It's just as simple "implosion" since when "never" happens
then "nothing" happens, than when "always" happens, "anything"
happens.
That's what it says, at least.
Principle of explosion? When pigs fly.
On 2026-06-04 14:23, olcott wrote:
On 6/4/2026 2:21 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-06-04 13:18, olcott wrote:
The "Bait and Switch" of Formal Semantics
In linguistics and everyday English, semantics refers to the meaning
of words and how those meanings connect.
That's *lexical* semantics, a narrow subfield of semantics.
But in the early 20th century, classical logicians redefined
"semantics" for their mathematical models. In classical logic, the
"semantics" of a sentence has absolutely nothing to do with its
definitions, concepts, or real-world subjects. The semantic value of
a sentence is stripped down to a single bit of data: True (1) or
False (0).
I can assure you that linguistics uses much the same definition as
mathematics.
André
Do you understand how Montague Grammar works, or
do you simply dismiss it out-of-hand as everyone
that is an expert in linguistics does?
Yes, I have studied Montague Grammar. It is based on intensional logic
which is in turn based on standard higher order logic, which is truth- functional in nature. Montague was a mathematician and used standard mathematical definitions.
And I wouldn't say that linguistics dismisses Montague Grammar out-of-
hand. Modern approaches to formal semantic incorporate those aspects of
MG which proved to be useful. MG is mostly, though, of historical
interest since the field has progressed considerably since the 70s.
André
On 6/4/2026 3:32 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-06-04 14:23, olcott wrote:
On 6/4/2026 2:21 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-06-04 13:18, olcott wrote:
The "Bait and Switch" of Formal Semantics
In linguistics and everyday English, semantics refers to the
meaning of words and how those meanings connect.
That's *lexical* semantics, a narrow subfield of semantics.
But in the early 20th century, classical logicians redefined
"semantics" for their mathematical models. In classical logic, the
"semantics" of a sentence has absolutely nothing to do with its
definitions, concepts, or real-world subjects. The semantic value
of a sentence is stripped down to a single bit of data: True (1) or >>>>> False (0).
I can assure you that linguistics uses much the same definition as
mathematics.
André
Do you understand how Montague Grammar works, or
do you simply dismiss it out-of-hand as everyone
that is an expert in linguistics does?
Yes, I have studied Montague Grammar. It is based on intensional logic
which is in turn based on standard higher order logic, which is truth-
functional in nature. Montague was a mathematician and used standard
mathematical definitions.
That much of your understanding is good.
And I wouldn't say that linguistics dismisses Montague Grammar out-of-
hand. Modern approaches to formal semantic incorporate those aspects
of MG which proved to be useful. MG is mostly, though, of historical
interest since the field has progressed considerably since the 70s.
André
I have been on sci.lang for a few years, years ago.
They do dismiss Montague Grammar out-of-hand as if
it has been completely debunked.
On 6/4/2026 2:01 PM, Moebius wrote:
Am 04.06.2026 um 20:51 schrieb olcott:
On 6/4/2026 1:18 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-06-04 11:51, olcott wrote:It is completely nuts that anyone believed
On 6/4/2026 12:20 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
So your problem isn't with the POE but with the rule of
disjunction introduction?
Disjunction introduction is a key aspect of the basis
from which POE is derived here:
That doesn't answer my question. Do you have issues with the POE,
the rule of disjunction, or both?
"any statement can be proven from a contradiction"
for nearly as much as 1/4 of one second.
If you say so.
Let's ask ChatGPT!
Q (me): Is it true that "any statement can be proven from a
contradiction".
When talking with LLMs the prompt must be very carefully composed.
Exactly how does the statement: "The Moon is madeRight. It doesn't.
from green cheese and the Moon is not made from
green cheese" semantically entail that Donald Trump
is the Lord Jesus Christ [...]?
It doesn’t.
On 6/4/2026 2:01 PM, Moebius wrote:
Am 04.06.2026 um 20:51 schrieb olcott:
On 6/4/2026 1:18 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-06-04 11:51, olcott wrote:It is completely nuts that anyone believed
On 6/4/2026 12:20 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
So your problem isn't with the POE but with the rule of
disjunction introduction?
Disjunction introduction is a key aspect of the basis
from which POE is derived here:
That doesn't answer my question. Do you have issues with the POE,
the rule of disjunction, or both?
"any statement can be proven from a contradiction"
for nearly as much as 1/4 of one second.
If you say so.
Let's ask ChatGPT!
Q (me): Is it true that "any statement can be proven from a
contradiction".
When talking with LLMs the prompt must be very carefully composed.
Exactly how does the statement: "The Moon is madeRight. It doesn't.
from green cheese and the Moon is not made from
green cheese" semantically entail that Donald Trump
is the Lord Jesus Christ [...]?
It doesn’t.
Am 04.06.2026 um 21:18 schrieb olcott:
When talking with LLMs the prompt must be very carefully composed.Indeed. The following "question" is (almost) nonsensical.
Exactly how does the statement: "The Moon is madeRight. It doesn't.
from green cheese and the Moon is not made from
green cheese" semantically entail that Donald Trump
is the Lord Jesus Christ [...]?
ChatGPT: It doesn’t.
Hint: The question should have been (something like):
Exactly how does the statement: "The Moon is made
from green cheese and the Moon is not made from
green cheese" logically entail the statement
"Donald Trump is the Lord Jesus Christ"?
Logical entailment is about statements. EFQ is the principle that any "false" statement entails any STATEMENT, not that, for example, Donald
Trump is the Lord Jesus Christ.
<facepalm>
On 2026-06-04 14:52, olcott wrote:
On 6/4/2026 3:32 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-06-04 14:23, olcott wrote:
On 6/4/2026 2:21 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-06-04 13:18, olcott wrote:
The "Bait and Switch" of Formal Semantics
In linguistics and everyday English, semantics refers to the
meaning of words and how those meanings connect.
That's *lexical* semantics, a narrow subfield of semantics.
But in the early 20th century, classical logicians redefined
"semantics" for their mathematical models. In classical logic, the >>>>>> "semantics" of a sentence has absolutely nothing to do with its
definitions, concepts, or real-world subjects. The semantic value >>>>>> of a sentence is stripped down to a single bit of data: True (1)
or False (0).
I can assure you that linguistics uses much the same definition as
mathematics.
André
Do you understand how Montague Grammar works, or
do you simply dismiss it out-of-hand as everyone
that is an expert in linguistics does?
Yes, I have studied Montague Grammar. It is based on intensional
logic which is in turn based on standard higher order logic, which is
truth- functional in nature. Montague was a mathematician and used
standard mathematical definitions.
That much of your understanding is good.
And I wouldn't say that linguistics dismisses Montague Grammar out-
of- hand. Modern approaches to formal semantic incorporate those
aspects of MG which proved to be useful. MG is mostly, though, of
historical interest since the field has progressed considerably since
the 70s.
André
I have been on sci.lang for a few years, years ago.
They do dismiss Montague Grammar out-of-hand as if
it has been completely debunked.
AFAIK, there have been no linguists posting to sci.lang since the 90s.
The last person on that group with at least a modicum of linguistic knowledge was P.T. Daniels (a grammatologist, not a linguist), and he stopped posting when google groups died.
André
Am 04.06.2026 um 21:18 schrieb olcott:
On 6/4/2026 2:01 PM, Moebius wrote:
Am 04.06.2026 um 20:51 schrieb olcott:
On 6/4/2026 1:18 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-06-04 11:51, olcott wrote:It is completely nuts that anyone believed
On 6/4/2026 12:20 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
So your problem isn't with the POE but with the rule of
disjunction introduction?
Disjunction introduction is a key aspect of the basis
from which POE is derived here:
That doesn't answer my question. Do you have issues with the POE,
the rule of disjunction, or both?
"any statement can be proven from a contradiction"
for nearly as much as 1/4 of one second.
If you say so.
Let's ask ChatGPT!
Q (me): Is it true that "any statement can be proven from a
contradiction".
When talking with LLMs the prompt must be very carefully composed.
Indeed. The following "question" is (almost) nonsensical.
Exactly how does the statement: "The Moon is madeRight. It doesn't.
from green cheese and the Moon is not made from
green cheese" semantically entail that Donald Trump
is the Lord Jesus Christ [...]?
It doesn’t.
Hint: The question should have been:
Exactly how does the statement: "The Moon is made
from green cheese and the Moon is not made from
green cheese" logically entail that the statement
"Donald Trump is the Lord Jesus Christ"?
Logical entailment
is about statments. EFQ is the principle that any
"false" statement entails any STATEMENT, not that, for example, Donald
Trump is the Lord Jesus Christ.
<facepalm>
Am 04.06.2026 um 21:18 schrieb olcott:
On 6/4/2026 2:01 PM, Moebius wrote:
Am 04.06.2026 um 20:51 schrieb olcott:
On 6/4/2026 1:18 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-06-04 11:51, olcott wrote:It is completely nuts that anyone believed
On 6/4/2026 12:20 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
So your problem isn't with the POE but with the rule of
disjunction introduction?
Disjunction introduction is a key aspect of the basis
from which POE is derived here:
That doesn't answer my question. Do you have issues with the POE,
the rule of disjunction, or both?
"any statement can be proven from a contradiction"
for nearly as much as 1/4 of one second.
If you say so.
Let's ask ChatGPT!
Q (me): Is it true that "any statement can be proven from a
contradiction".
When talking with LLMs the prompt must be very carefully composed.
Indeed. The following "question" is (almost) nonsensical.
Exactly how does the statement: "The Moon is madeRight. It doesn't.
from green cheese and the Moon is not made from
green cheese" semantically entail that Donald Trump
is the Lord Jesus Christ [...]?
It doesn’t.
Hint: The question should have been:
Exactly how does the statement: "The Moon is made
from green cheese and the Moon is not made from
green cheese" logically entail the statement
"Donald Trump is the Lord Jesus Christ"?
Logical entailment is about statements. EFQ is the principle that any "false" statement entails any STATEMENT, not that, for example, Donald
Trump is the Lord Jesus Christ.
<facepalm>
Am 04.06.2026 um 23:11 schrieb Moebius:
Am 04.06.2026 um 21:18 schrieb olcott:
When talking with LLMs the prompt must be very carefully composed.Indeed. The following "question" is (almost) nonsensical.
Exactly how does the statement: "The Moon is madeRight. It doesn't.
from green cheese and the Moon is not made from
green cheese" semantically entail that Donald Trump
is the Lord Jesus Christ [...]?
ChatGPT: It doesn’t.
Hint: The question should have been (something like):
Exactly how does the statement: "The Moon is made
from green cheese and the Moon is not made from
green cheese" logically entail the statement
"Donald Trump is the Lord Jesus Christ"?
Logical entailment is about statements. EFQ is the principle that any
"false" statement entails any STATEMENT, not that, for example, Donald
Trump is the Lord Jesus Christ.
<facepalm>
ChatGPT:
"In classical logic,
Am 04.06.2026 um 20:12 schrieb olcott:
On 6/4/2026 12:13 PM, Moebius wrote:
Am 04.06.2026 um 18:42 schrieb polcott:Within [what I -P. Olcott- considers] objectively correct reasoning
No, that's not "a mistake".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion#Proof
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disjunction_introduction
is the mistake P ∴ P ∨ Q // pulls Q out of no where
Hint: For any statements P and Q: If P is true, then the statement 'P
v Q' is true too (by the semantics of 'v' in CLASSICAL logic).
This is not how correct reasoning works.It is "correct reasoning" in the context of CLASSICAL logic.
If you don't like that, you may just chose a non-classical logic,
say, relevance logic:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relevance_logic
relevance is mandatory.
I see. Feel free to use relevance logic for your reasoning, but don't
forget to point out that fact (since relevance logic -as a non-classical logic- is non-standard.)
.
.
.
On 06/03/2026 06:38 PM, polcott wrote:
On 6/3/2026 6:25 PM, "Ross Finlayson" wrote:
Every Mom knows that their little kid is lying
when they contradict themselves.
Mathematicians think that:
"any statement can be proven from a contradiction"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
because they removed semantics from logic since the syllogism.
This makes mathematicians more stupid than every Mom.
I suppose that "everybody knows that Kid is a little liar",
or Burse-bots generally enough, then though that
the above is a mis-attribution, since I did not write it.
On 6/4/2026 5:20 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:Well, maybe the kid is NOT lying (i.e. intentionally stating a
On 06/03/2026 06:38 PM, polcott wrote:
On 6/3/2026 6:25 PM, "Ross Finlayson" wrote:
Every Mom knows that their little kid is lying
when they contradict themselves.
Which is true (in the context of classical logic).Mathematicians think that:
"any statement can be proven from a contradiction"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
No, they didn't. <facepalm>because they removed semantics from logic since the syllogism.
Huh?!This makes mathematicians more stupid than every Mom.
PO has no right to talk about kids.Well, imho he has (->human rights). But (especially) he has to be very
On 6/4/2026 5:20 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 06/03/2026 06:38 PM, polcott wrote:
On 6/3/2026 6:25 PM, "Ross Finlayson" wrote:
Every Mom knows that their little kid is lying
when they contradict themselves.
Mathematicians think that:
"any statement can be proven from a contradiction"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
because they removed semantics from logic since the syllogism.
This makes mathematicians more stupid than every Mom.
PO has no right to talk about kids.
Am 05.06.2026 um 03:21 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson:
On 6/4/2026 5:20 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 06/03/2026 06:38 PM, polcott wrote:
On 6/3/2026 6:25 PM, "Ross Finlayson" wrote:
Every Mom knows that their little kid is lying
when they contradict themselves.
Well, maybe the kid is NOT lying (i.e. intentionally stating a
falsehood). It may just be confused.
Mathematicians think that:
"any statement can be proven from a contradiction"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
Which is true (in the context of classical logic).
because they removed semantics from logic since the syllogism.
No, they didn't. <facepalm>
This makes mathematicians more stupid than every Mom.
Huh?!
PO has no right to talk about kids.
Well, imho he has (->human rights). But (especially) he has to be very careful [about] what he says. :-P
Serious question: Do you think that "once a pedo, always a pedo" is true?
______________________________________________________________________
Ok, we all know that PO once claimed to be god. So (it's almost certain that) at e certain time in his live he was nuts (if he really believed
in his claim). But ...
.
.
.
On 6/4/2026 2:36 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 04/06/2026 04:38, polcott wrote:
On 6/3/2026 6:25 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
Every Mom knows that their little kid is lying
when they contradict themselves.
Mathematicians think that:
"any statement can be proven from a contradiction"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
because they removed semantics from logic since the syllogism.
This makes mathematicians more stupid than every Mom.
The principle that "any statement can be prove from a contradiction"
does not apply to syllogisms.
It never has correctly applied to anything.
On 6/4/2026 4:07 PM, Moebius wrote:
Am 04.06.2026 um 21:18 schrieb olcott:
On 6/4/2026 2:01 PM, Moebius wrote:
Am 04.06.2026 um 20:51 schrieb olcott:
On 6/4/2026 1:18 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-06-04 11:51, olcott wrote:It is completely nuts that anyone believed
On 6/4/2026 12:20 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
So your problem isn't with the POE but with the rule of
disjunction introduction?
Disjunction introduction is a key aspect of the basis
from which POE is derived here:
That doesn't answer my question. Do you have issues with the POE, >>>>>> the rule of disjunction, or both?
"any statement can be proven from a contradiction"
for nearly as much as 1/4 of one second.
If you say so.
Let's ask ChatGPT!
Q (me): Is it true that "any statement can be proven from a
contradiction".
When talking with LLMs the prompt must be very carefully composed.
Indeed. The following "question" is (almost) nonsensical.
Exactly how does the statement: "The Moon is madeRight. It doesn't.
from green cheese and the Moon is not made from
green cheese" semantically entail that Donald Trump
is the Lord Jesus Christ [...]?
It doesn’t.
Hint: The question should have been:
Exactly how does the statement: "The Moon is made
from green cheese and the Moon is not made from
green cheese" logically entail that the statement
"Donald Trump is the Lord Jesus Christ"?
Logical entailment
Is the psychotic break from reality that makes sure
to totally ignore semantic meaning.
On 6/4/2026 6:44 PM, Moebius wrote:
Am 05.06.2026 um 03:21 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson:
On 6/4/2026 5:20 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 06/03/2026 06:38 PM, polcott wrote:
On 6/3/2026 6:25 PM, "Ross Finlayson" wrote:
Every Mom knows that their little kid is lying
when they contradict themselves.
Well, maybe the kid is NOT lying (i.e. intentionally stating a
falsehood). It may just be confused.
Mathematicians think that:
"any statement can be proven from a contradiction"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
Which is true (in the context of classical logic).
because they removed semantics from logic since the syllogism.
No, they didn't. <facepalm>
This makes mathematicians more stupid than every Mom.
Huh?!
PO has no right to talk about kids.
Well, imho he has (->human rights). But (especially) he has to be very
careful [about] what he says. :-P
Serious question: Do you think that "once a pedo, always a pedo" is true?
Scary. Well, yeah. I do.
______________________________________________________________________
Ok, we all know that PO once claimed to be god. So (it's almost
certain that) at e certain time in his live he was nuts (if he really
believed in his claim). But ...
.
.
.
On 06/03/2026 06:38 PM, polcott wrote:
On 6/3/2026 6:25 PM, "Ross Finlayson" wrote:
Every Mom knows that their little kid is lying
when they contradict themselves.
Mathematicians think that:
"any statement can be proven from a contradiction"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
because they removed semantics from logic since the syllogism.
This makes mathematicians more stupid than every Mom.
I suppose that "everybody knows that Kid is a little liar",
or Burse-bots generally enough, then though that
the above is a mis-attribution, since I did not write it.
On 6/4/2026 6:44 PM, Moebius wrote:I see. On the other hand, we might differentiate between being a pedo (something which may not be curable) and acting as a pedo.
Serious question: Do you think that "once a pedo, always a pedo" is true?Scary. Well, yeah. I do.
Am 05.06.2026 um 07:51 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson:
On 6/4/2026 6:44 PM, Moebius wrote:
Serious question: Do you think that "once a pedo, always a pedo" isScary. Well, yeah. I do.
true?
I see. On the other hand, we might differentiate between being a pedo (something which may not be curable) and acting as a pedo.
On 6/5/2026 8:51 AM, Moebius wrote:
Am 05.06.2026 um 07:51 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson:[...] I know PO got caught with "pedo porn"
On 6/4/2026 6:44 PM, Moebius wrote:
Serious question: Do you think that "once a pedo, always a pedo" isScary. Well, yeah. I do.
true?
I see. On the other hand, we might differentiate between being a pedo
(something which may not be curable) and acting as a pedo.
claimed to be God ect....
That is a rather massive red flag? Get him out of society?
Too harsh?
On 6/5/2026 8:51 AM, Moebius wrote:Well, AIs will be able to do it for you. :-P
Not sure how to parse that.
I see. On the other hand, we might differentiate between being a pedo
(something which may not be curable) and acting as a pedo.
Am 05.06.2026 um 23:37 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson:
On 6/5/2026 8:51 AM, Moebius wrote:
Not sure how to parse that.
I see. On the other hand, we might differentiate between being a pedo
(something which may not be curable) and acting as a pedo.
Well, AIs will be able to do it for you. :-P
Google-KI:
"In clinical and legal terms, there is a fundamental difference between being a pedophile (experiencing an attraction) and acting as a pedophile (committing a crime). The distinction lies between a psychiatric
condition and criminal behavior."
Am 05.06.2026 um 23:37 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson:
On 6/5/2026 8:51 AM, Moebius wrote:
Am 05.06.2026 um 07:51 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson:[...] I know PO got caught with "pedo porn"
On 6/4/2026 6:44 PM, Moebius wrote:
Serious question: Do you think that "once a pedo, always a pedo" is >>>>> true?Scary. Well, yeah. I do.
I see. On the other hand, we might differentiate between being a pedo
(something which may not be curable) and acting as a pedo.
The question is ... if he BOUGHT that nasty stuff [which in my book
counts as "acting as a pedo"], or if he just "found" it somewhere [etc.].
claimed to be God ect....
Well... Then god is a pedo ... well.
That is a rather massive red flag? Get him out of society?
I guess that's something for a trial to decide. There are laws.
Too harsh?
What can I say? Some people are victims and perpetrators at the same time.
If PO behaves properly these days, I wouldn't tend to dump him as a
human being.
Remember the quote?: “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”
Remember the quote?: “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” >>Well, PO wrote it right? ;^)
He [PO] should have said "I am God and yes even God can get a
[habit] download[ing] things behind [his] back"? I guess. Don't know. Shit man.
Am 06.06.2026 um 01:28 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson:
He [PO] should have said "I am God and yes even God can get a [habit]
download[ing] things behind [his] back"? I guess. Don't know. Shit man.
"Do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing" (Matthew 6:3–4)
:-)
You know, the bible is just "the Word of God in the words of man". :-)
God has infinite[ly many] arms? ;^DWho knows? We should ask PO for that. :-)
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 1,123 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 35:08:38 |
| Calls: | 14,371 |
| Files: | 186,380 |
| D/L today: |
1,177 files (352M bytes) |
| Messages: | 2,540,622 |