trustme.bro/r/…
✓ checked
trust me, bro:
here is the receipt.
the claim
P <-> Q and P -> ~Q logically entails a contradiction.
the verdict
COMMON KNOWLEDGE
no citation needed for this one
refutedsupported
the weight of evidence
1 source for · 0 against
AS REPORTEDno primary record reached; this is what the reporting says

The claim that P <-> Q and P -> ~Q logically entails a contradiction is a matter of formal logic and standard truth-table evaluation.

Evidence for · 1
Epistemic justification
2001 · cited by 0
with the logically probable, it is logically probable that the belief is true, and so logically probable … every bet. The logically probable may never happen, but of course it is always logically probable that … implies q, if it is not logically possible that (p and not-q). Where q is itself logically necessary, it will
See more details
The analysis

rails:sufficiency:supported:single_source:for=1+0p:against=0+0p | v55:sufficiency | v55:coherence_repaired:what=both

Everything we examined (1)
This check searched the claim as stated. It did not run a separate search for evidence against it.
  1. Epistemic justificationreferenceno side taken
This receipt carries no identity, shared or not. Sharing publishes your connection to it, not your data.
Check your own claim
Challenge the receipt
trust me, bro: win the argument, pass the class, survive peer review.
This receipt is an automated verdict against our published method · not an opinion about any author or publication.
Terms · Privacy · How verdicts work · Dispute this receipt