Because in the second example, it’s been deduced that (output X)=a. It’s like how you can prove anything from a false premise.
I think it might help to say that explicitly.
Good call. Is my edit better?
Yes, though I would say “because you can prove anything from a false premise”.
Subtle distinction: it’s not unconditionally taking a false axiom and deriving a spurious conclusion, it’s proving a conditional by proving the antecedent is false.
I’ll see if I can improve the wording.
Because in the second example, it’s been deduced that (output X)=a. It’s like how you can prove anything from a false premise.
I think it might help to say that explicitly.
Good call. Is my edit better?
Yes, though I would say “because you can prove anything from a false premise”.
Subtle distinction: it’s not unconditionally taking a false axiom and deriving a spurious conclusion, it’s proving a conditional by proving the antecedent is false.
I’ll see if I can improve the wording.