Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

# David_Gerard comments on Paraconsistency and relevance: avoid logical explosions - Less Wrong Discussion

8 04 April 2012 11:57AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Sort By: Best

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: 04 April 2012 08:32:41PM 0 points [-]

Did everyone else's first year maths lecturer prove that if 1=0, then they were Brigitte Bardot? (We all applauded at the end of the proof.) Now that's how to hammer home the point of a logical explosion from a false statement.

Comment author: 05 April 2012 09:58:16AM *  1 point [-]

Did everyone else's first year maths lecturer prove that if 1=0, then they were Brigitte Bardot? (We all applauded at the end of the proof.) Now that's how to hammer home the point of a logical explosion from a false statement.

A false statement isn't sufficient to obtain logical explosion, but it is necessary. Most likely, you are referring to a "proof" that introduces a premise that contradicts an earlier stated premise without any of the students noticing (which is a very cool trick indeed). Contradictory premises are necessary and sufficient to obtain logical explosion.

Comment author: 05 April 2012 02:26:15PM 0 points [-]

Most likely, you are referring to a "proof" that introduces a premise that contradicts an earlier stated premise without any of the students noticing (which is a very cool trick indeed).

If it's like the "I am god" trick, then the contradiction is using both 1=1 and 1=2 at the same time.