> Inconsistent: trivial, from falsehood follows anything. Only trivial if you accept the principle of explosion (ex falso quodlibet or ex contradictione quodli

> Inconsistent: trivial, from falsehood follows anything. Only trivial if you accept the principle of explosion (ex falso quodlibet or ex contradictione quodlibet). If you reject it, you end up with paraconsistent logic, from which one can develop nontrivial inconsistent mathematics see https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mathematics-inconsistent/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mathematics-inconsistent/ and https://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10092/5626/12633603_Real%20Analysis%20in%20Paraconsistent%20Logic_a.pdf https://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10092/5626/1263...