Grok 3: Another win for the bitter lesson

In general from a formal logic perspective the whole idea of “an exception that proves the rule” is flawed. If the statement was “an exception that disproves the rule”, then I would agree.

"The exception that proves the rule" does not mean that an exception confirms a rule in a logical sense. Instead, it originates from legal and linguistic contexts where an explicit exception implies the existence of a general rule. E.g. a sign that says "No parking on Sundays" implies that the rule is that parking is fine on other days.

I always thought it meant "the exception (to the rule-of-thumb) proves the (hard, correct) rule".

It's used in multiple senses, so it's almost impossible to tell what the person using it means.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule...

It's only flawed because you are also using it wrong!

For years I didn't know. Finally. Thanks!