In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Lester Zick <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 03:07:19 -0400, email@example.com wrote: > > > > > > >Lester Zick wrote: > >> On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 14:14:26 -0600, Virgil <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > >> > > > > >[...] > > > >> >Truth of "If P then Q" need not require assuming the truth of "P". > >> > >> Never said it did. I just said the truth of any Q demonstrated of P > >> requires the assumption of truth for P. > > > >No. P may be false and validly imply true q. > > I don't follow this. If P is false then any Q demonstrated of P is > false too.
Wrong! From assumption of a false statement one may deduce any statement at all, including any true statement.
Bertrand Russell, in a public debate, once stated this, and was immediately challenged to prove that if 2 = 1, then he (Russell) was the Pope.
As Russell's atheism was well known, the audience laughed loudly.
As soon as the laughter died down Russell argued: "The Pope and I are two" "If 2 = 1 then the Pope and I are one, "therefore I am the Pope."