The nature of correct proofs

[olcott]

On 7/17/2021 9:40 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> olcott <No...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On 7/17/2021 6:31 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>> olcott <No...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>> On 7/16/2021 5:01 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>> 99% sure wij is Olcott sockpuppet, perhaps used by Olcott to progress
>>>>> certain discussions.
>
>>>>> /Flibble
>
>
>>>> It is very easy to see that they have asked questions that I would never
>>>> ask when you have Thunderbird and can see all the question that they
>>>> ever asked. I will repond to one of their questions so you can see.
>
>>> Why don't you just unambiguously confirm or deny that you are wij, like
>>> I asked you to in another thread?
>
>
>> I am not wij.
>
> Thanks for clearing that up.
>
>> you could have answered this question yourself by looking at the
>> questions that wij asks.
>
>> That you ask question like this proves that you are a damn jackass that
>> has the primary tactic of the dishonest dodge.
>
> You got out of the wrong side of bed today, or something?
>
>> The longer you distract attention away from the point the longer it
>> takes for you to be proven wrong.
>
> You can't prove me wrong. As I pointed out last night, you don't even
> understand what "prove" means.
>

The only model of proof that can be relied on as correct is when a proof
begins with verifiably true premises and only applies truth preserving
operations.

That the principle of explosion allows lies to be converted into
entailment is an error because it forgoes the mandatory requirement of
truth preserving operations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion

Relevance logic seems to correct this error:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relevance_logic

>> --
>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>
>> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
>> minds." Einstein
>


--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein