
Deduction Theorem: The Problematic Nature of Common Practice in Game Theory - sel1
https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.00409
======
Hercuros
This paper is almost entirely incomprehensible to me, and I have a background
in formal logic. It might be that there is some error in the proofs that this
author is referring to, but the paper does not make any clear point about what
the problem is. There is a lot of unusual use of language (talk of
propositional formulas "existing" and things like only being allowed to make
deductions where the formulas are "previously known to be true").

Even in the introduction there are statements which do not make sense, like
the statement that you are required to show that A and B are true in order to
conclude that A logically entails B. This is simply not the case, since it is
very well possible for A to be a formula which is always false
(unsatisfiable/inconsistent), in which case A entails ANY statement, including
B.

