trustme.bro/r/…
✓ checked
trust me, bro:
here is the receipt.
the claim
Two valid logical deductions from independent sets of assumptions can yield contradictory conclusions if the assumptions are inconsistent.
the verdict
SUPPORTED
the evidence backs this
refutedsupported
the weight of evidence
1 source for · 0 against
AS REPORTEDno primary record reached; this is what the reporting says

Logical consequence principles confirm that arguments derived from a contradictory or inconsistent collection of premises can be formally valid while yielding contradictory conclusions.

Evidence for · 1
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Logical Consequence
cited by 0
Notes that an argument from a contradictory collection of premises to any conclusion is valid, meaning incompatible assumptions can lead to contradictory conclusions.
See more details
How claims like this are judged

Judged against reference works: claims of this kind are settled by reference works, not journal abstracts.

The paper trail · every fact has a biography
first checked04 Aug 2026
judged → SUPPORTED · 7504 Aug 2026
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