On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 7:08:32 AM UTC-7, Mild Shock wrote:
> On top of your bullshit, you even don't understand why LEM
> is rejected. Despite the fact that this here is not provable:
>
> EXIST(b):[b e s]
>
> Further even for those state of affairs where s is non-empty there are
> still plenty of reasons why your Trichotomy might rejects LEM,
>
> i.e. left it fail, make it non-provable. Or as SEP puts it:
>
> "Logics where LEM fails are not themselves hard to come by.
> Among many such logics are a number of three-valued logics
> that allow sentences to take a third value over and above true
> and false. Sentences like Liar sentences take the third value."
> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liar-paradox/#ParaParaLogi
> Mild Shock schrieb am Freitag, 1. September 2023 um 00:14:01 UTC+2:
> > There are serious doubts, it could be that an Olcott Fallacy is
> > involved. Of the form that one thinks that "if pigs can fly then
> > the moon is made of green cheese" implies that
> >
> > "the moon s made of green cheese". But I could not yet produce
> > a proof that the axioms used by for example Dan Christensen
> > are inconsistent, and therefore its not really the case that
> >
> > there is a cretan that says the truth. But the sketch is now:
> > I think Dan Christensen used something like:
> >
> > (Pb ↔ ∀x¬Px) → ¬Pb is valid.
> > https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(Pb~4~6x~3Px)~5~3Pb
> >
> > We can also write it like this, there is now a collection of b's
> > that satisfies Pb, and this collection is non-empty, this is what ∃xPx says.
> >
> > (∃xPx ↔ ∀x¬Px) → ¬∃xPx is valid.
> > https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~7xPx~4~6x~3Px)~5~3~7xPx
> >
> > But the above is a vacous truth, since ∃xPx ↔ ∀x¬Px is
> > logically equivalent to ∃xPx ↔ ¬∃xPx which is an antinomy,
> > its just like the liar paradox Q ↔ ¬Q, namely we have:
> >
> > ¬(∃xPx ↔ ¬∃xPx) is valid.
> > https://www.umsu.de/trees/#~3(~7xPx~4~3~7xPx)
> > Dan Christensen schrieb am Donnerstag, 31. August 2023 um 19:50:21 UTC+2:
> > > On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 3:14:22 AM UTC-4, Mild Shock wrote:
> > > > Well you cannot prove, because of Trichotomy:
> > > > ALL(b):[b e s => b e t | b e f]
> > > I guess you still haven't noticed that you switched to the Epimenedes Paradox (see heading). There are no sets here. It is purely FOL.
> > >
> > > Dan

How?

On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 10:08:32 AM UTC-4, Mild Shock (aka Mr. Collapse) wrote:
> On top of your bullshit, you even don't understand why LEM
> is rejected.

[snip]

For some bizarre reason you seem to think that simply because a trichotomy is introduced, it means that LEM no longer applies. When will you learn, Mr.. Collapse???

Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com