William T. Parry, Entailment Logics
gets rid of Disjunction introduction
to prevent the principle of explosion
A simple logical matrix and sequent calculus for
Parry’s logic of Analytic Implication
The main and distinctive feature of PAI (and of the many
systems of analytic implication belonging to its ilk) is
the rejection of the classically valid principle of Addition,
sometimes also referred to as Disjunction Introduction. In
other words, the principle leading from a formula ϕ to a
disjunction of the form ϕ ∨ ψ, where ψ is an arbitrary
formula. Parry blamed on this principle the derivability
of the paradoxes of strict implication—given that it is
famously featured in Lewis’ derivation of an arbitrary
formula ψ from a contradiction of the form ϕ ∧ ¬ϕ.
https://philarchive.org/archive/SZMASL
On 26/06/2026 04:32, olcott wrote:
William T. Parry, Entailment Logics
gets rid of Disjunction introduction
to prevent the principle of explosion
A simple logical matrix and sequent calculus for
Parry’s logic of Analytic Implication
The main and distinctive feature of PAI (and of the many
systems of analytic implication belonging to its ilk) is
the rejection of the classically valid principle of Addition,
sometimes also referred to as Disjunction Introduction. In
other words, the principle leading from a formula ϕ to a
disjunction of the form ϕ ∨ ψ, where ψ is an arbitrary
formula. Parry blamed on this principle the derivability
of the paradoxes of strict implication—given that it is
famously featured in Lewis’ derivation of an arbitrary
formula ψ from a contradiction of the form ϕ ∧ ¬ϕ.
https://philarchive.org/archive/SZMASL
He also gets rid of an efficient way to convince people who don't
understand much of logic.
On 6/26/2026 1:49 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 26/06/2026 04:32, olcott wrote:
William T. Parry, Entailment Logics
gets rid of Disjunction introduction
to prevent the principle of explosion
A simple logical matrix and sequent calculus for
Parry’s logic of Analytic Implication
The main and distinctive feature of PAI (and of the many
systems of analytic implication belonging to its ilk) is
the rejection of the classically valid principle of Addition,
sometimes also referred to as Disjunction Introduction. In
other words, the principle leading from a formula ϕ to a
disjunction of the form ϕ ∨ ψ, where ψ is an arbitrary
formula. Parry blamed on this principle the derivability
of the paradoxes of strict implication—given that it is
famously featured in Lewis’ derivation of an arbitrary
formula ψ from a contradiction of the form ϕ ∧ ¬ϕ.
https://philarchive.org/archive/SZMASL
He also gets rid of an efficient way to convince people who don't
understand much of logic.
As I recently showed in another post. I figured
all this out on my own. I didn't even know that
anyone else ever did this. I just knew that when
trying to find out what is deduced from a set of
premises that you cannot pop in another sentence
from out of nowhere and get a correct conclusion.
On 6/26/2026 8:49 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:49 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 26/06/2026 04:32, olcott wrote:
William T. Parry, Entailment Logics
gets rid of Disjunction introduction
to prevent the principle of explosion
A simple logical matrix and sequent calculus for
Parry’s logic of Analytic Implication
The main and distinctive feature of PAI (and of the many
systems of analytic implication belonging to its ilk) is
the rejection of the classically valid principle of Addition,
sometimes also referred to as Disjunction Introduction. In
other words, the principle leading from a formula ϕ to a
disjunction of the form ϕ ∨ ψ, where ψ is an arbitrary
formula. Parry blamed on this principle the derivability
of the paradoxes of strict implication—given that it is
famously featured in Lewis’ derivation of an arbitrary
formula ψ from a contradiction of the form ϕ ∧ ¬ϕ.
https://philarchive.org/archive/SZMASL
He also gets rid of an efficient way to convince people who don't
understand much of logic.
As I recently showed in another post. I figured
all this out on my own. I didn't even know that
anyone else ever did this. I just knew that when
trying to find out what is deduced from a set of
premises that you cannot pop in another sentence
from out of nowhere and get a correct conclusion.
Given that the following statement is true:
--------------------------------------
There is a Walmart bag at the deepest point of the Mariana Trench. --------------------------------------
And the following statement has an unknown truth value: --------------------------------------
There is a Walmart bag at the deepest point of the Mariana Trench. --------------------------------------
When put together in the following natural language sentence:
--------------------------------------
At least one of the following statements is true:
- Earth is the third planet from the sun.
- There is a Walmart bag at the deepest point of the Mariana Trench. --------------------------------------
Is the condition "At least one of the following statements is true" satisfied?
On 6/26/2026 8:14 AM, dbush wrote:
On 6/26/2026 8:49 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:49 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 26/06/2026 04:32, olcott wrote:
William T. Parry, Entailment Logics
gets rid of Disjunction introduction
to prevent the principle of explosion
A simple logical matrix and sequent calculus for
Parry’s logic of Analytic Implication
The main and distinctive feature of PAI (and of the many
systems of analytic implication belonging to its ilk) is
the rejection of the classically valid principle of Addition,
sometimes also referred to as Disjunction Introduction. In
other words, the principle leading from a formula ϕ to a
disjunction of the form ϕ ∨ ψ, where ψ is an arbitrary
formula. Parry blamed on this principle the derivability
of the paradoxes of strict implication—given that it is
famously featured in Lewis’ derivation of an arbitrary
formula ψ from a contradiction of the form ϕ ∧ ¬ϕ.
https://philarchive.org/archive/SZMASL
He also gets rid of an efficient way to convince people who don't
understand much of logic.
As I recently showed in another post. I figured
all this out on my own. I didn't even know that
anyone else ever did this. I just knew that when
trying to find out what is deduced from a set of
premises that you cannot pop in another sentence
from out of nowhere and get a correct conclusion.
Given that the following statement is true:
--------------------------------------
There is a Walmart bag at the deepest point of the Mariana Trench.
--------------------------------------
And the following statement has an unknown truth value:
--------------------------------------
There is a Walmart bag at the deepest point of the Mariana Trench.
--------------------------------------
When put together in the following natural language sentence:
--------------------------------------
At least one of the following statements is true:
- Earth is the third planet from the sun.
- There is a Walmart bag at the deepest point of the Mariana Trench.
--------------------------------------
Is the condition "At least one of the following statements is true"
satisfied?
You either are not bright enough to understand
the deep meaning of Disjunction introduction or
you are playing head games. Unless you want an
honest dialogue please fuck off.
On 6/26/2026 9:17 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/26/2026 8:14 AM, dbush wrote:
On 6/26/2026 8:49 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:49 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 26/06/2026 04:32, olcott wrote:
William T. Parry, Entailment Logics
gets rid of Disjunction introduction
to prevent the principle of explosion
A simple logical matrix and sequent calculus for
Parry’s logic of Analytic Implication
The main and distinctive feature of PAI (and of the many
systems of analytic implication belonging to its ilk) is
the rejection of the classically valid principle of Addition,
sometimes also referred to as Disjunction Introduction. In
other words, the principle leading from a formula ϕ to a
disjunction of the form ϕ ∨ ψ, where ψ is an arbitrary
formula. Parry blamed on this principle the derivability
of the paradoxes of strict implication—given that it is
famously featured in Lewis’ derivation of an arbitrary
formula ψ from a contradiction of the form ϕ ∧ ¬ϕ.
https://philarchive.org/archive/SZMASL
He also gets rid of an efficient way to convince people who don't
understand much of logic.
As I recently showed in another post. I figured
all this out on my own. I didn't even know that
anyone else ever did this. I just knew that when
trying to find out what is deduced from a set of
premises that you cannot pop in another sentence
from out of nowhere and get a correct conclusion.
Given that the following statement is true:
--------------------------------------
There is a Walmart bag at the deepest point of the Mariana Trench.
--------------------------------------
And the following statement has an unknown truth value:
--------------------------------------
There is a Walmart bag at the deepest point of the Mariana Trench.
--------------------------------------
When put together in the following natural language sentence:
--------------------------------------
At least one of the following statements is true:
- Earth is the third planet from the sun.
- There is a Walmart bag at the deepest point of the Mariana Trench.
--------------------------------------
Is the condition "At least one of the following statements is true"
satisfied?
You either are not bright enough to understand
the deep meaning of Disjunction introduction or
you are playing head games. Unless you want an
honest dialogue please fuck off.
Why is it a head game? It's a simple question:
Is the condition "At least one of the following statements is true" satisfied?
Not answering this question can only be seen as dishonest. Do you
intend to be dishonest?
On 6/26/2026 9:22 AM, dbush wrote:
On 6/26/2026 9:17 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/26/2026 8:14 AM, dbush wrote:
On 6/26/2026 8:49 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:49 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 26/06/2026 04:32, olcott wrote:
William T. Parry, Entailment Logics
gets rid of Disjunction introduction
to prevent the principle of explosion
A simple logical matrix and sequent calculus for
Parry’s logic of Analytic Implication
The main and distinctive feature of PAI (and of the many
systems of analytic implication belonging to its ilk) is
the rejection of the classically valid principle of Addition,
sometimes also referred to as Disjunction Introduction. In
other words, the principle leading from a formula ϕ to a
disjunction of the form ϕ ∨ ψ, where ψ is an arbitrary
formula. Parry blamed on this principle the derivability
of the paradoxes of strict implication—given that it is
famously featured in Lewis’ derivation of an arbitrary
formula ψ from a contradiction of the form ϕ ∧ ¬ϕ.
https://philarchive.org/archive/SZMASL
He also gets rid of an efficient way to convince people who don't
understand much of logic.
As I recently showed in another post. I figured
all this out on my own. I didn't even know that
anyone else ever did this. I just knew that when
trying to find out what is deduced from a set of
premises that you cannot pop in another sentence
from out of nowhere and get a correct conclusion.
Given that the following statement is true:
--------------------------------------
There is a Walmart bag at the deepest point of the Mariana Trench.
--------------------------------------
And the following statement has an unknown truth value:
--------------------------------------
There is a Walmart bag at the deepest point of the Mariana Trench.
--------------------------------------
When put together in the following natural language sentence:
--------------------------------------
At least one of the following statements is true:
- Earth is the third planet from the sun.
- There is a Walmart bag at the deepest point of the Mariana Trench.
--------------------------------------
Is the condition "At least one of the following statements is true"
satisfied?
You either are not bright enough to understand
the deep meaning of Disjunction introduction or
you are playing head games. Unless you want an
honest dialogue please fuck off.
Why is it a head game? It's a simple question:
Is the condition "At least one of the following statements is true"
satisfied?
Not answering this question can only be seen as dishonest. Do you
intend to be dishonest?
Copy/paste error above: the following statement is given as true:
--------------------------------------
Earth is the third planet from the sun. --------------------------------------
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 1,124 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 23:55:01 |
| Calls: | 14,394 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 186,389 |
| D/L today: |
5,745 files (1,443M bytes) |
| Messages: | 2,544,984 |
| Posted today: | 1 |