XPost: alt.philosophy, comp.theory   
   From: janburse@fastmail.fm   
      
   Hi,   
      
   The episode told me everything about the Character   
   of the silly Philosophy Professor:   
      
    > Me: LEM is derivable from RAA, in minimal logic.   
    > Prof: LEM is not even derivable from RAA in intuitionistic logic.   
    > Me: You didn’t use RAA as an inference schema!   
    > Prof: Our discussion is about logic and not about Prolog. I apologize.   
    >   
   https://swi-prolog.discourse.group/t/needing-help-with-call-with   
   depth-limit-3/7398/78   
      
   There were similar episodes, on the SWI-Prolog discourse   
   forum. In the same style. So there is no loss that I cannot   
      
   post anymore on SWI-Prolog discourse. But please:   
      
   **NEVER EVER CITE ME IN YOUR WORK**   
      
   Bye   
      
   Mild Shock schrieb:   
   > Hi,   
   >   
   > I always admired the French Teaching of Logic.   
   > This silly Philosophy Professor scolded me a couple   
   > of times with this nonsense, playing dumb and deaf,   
   >   
   > like a complete idiot:   
   >   
   > Me: LEM is derivable from RAA, in minimal logic.   
   > Prof: LEM is not even derivable from RAA in intuitionistic logic.   
   > Me: You didn’t use RAA as an inference schema!   
   > Prof: Our discussion is about logic and not about Prolog. I apologize.   
   > https://swi-prolog.discourse.group/t/needing-help-with-call-wi   
   h-depth-limit-3/7398/78   
   >   
   >   
   > Still his prover demonstrates LEM from RAA:   
   >   
   > ?-prove((a | ~a)).   
   > \begin{prooftree}   
   > \AxiomC{\scriptsize{1}}   
   > \noLine   
   > \UnaryInfC{$ \lnot (A \lor  \lnot A)$}   
   > \RightLabel{\scriptsize{$ \lor\to E$}}   
   > \UnaryInfC{$ \lnot  \lnot A$}   
   > \AxiomC{\scriptsize{1}}   
   > \noLine   
   > \UnaryInfC{$ \lnot (A \lor  \lnot A)$}   
   > \RightLabel{\scriptsize{$ \lor\to E$}}   
   > \UnaryInfC{$ \lnot A$}   
   > \RightLabel{\scriptsize{$ \to E $}}   
   > \BinaryInfC{$\bot$}   
   > \RightLabel{\scriptsize{$ IP $}  1}   
   > \UnaryInfC{$A \lor  \lnot A$}   
   > \end{prooftree}   
   > https://g4-mic.vidal-rosset.net/wasm/tinker#prove((a%20%7C%20~a)).   
   >   
   > Please note that RAA = IP, synonymous names.   
   > Reductio Ad Absurdum and Indirect Proof.   
   >   
   > LoL   
   >   
   > Bye   
   >   
   > Mild Shock schrieb:   
   >> Hi,   
   >>   
   >> In the coming age of analog computing,   
   >> symbolic logic means nothing:   
   >>   
   >> “The high data-rate sense perception and   
   >> identification abilities of the human system   
   >> mostly bypass verbal/analytic awareness. We   
   >>   are generally conscious of a cognitive   
   >> recognition after the fact. In this way, what   
   >> we understand as consciousness has to be   
   >> identified as a reflexive monitoring ability   
   >> with quite limited application. To produce   
   >> consciousness (artificial or otherwise) we   
   >> are stepping down, not up.”   
   >> ― Frank Herbert, Destination: Void   
   >>   
   >> Bye   
   >>   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)