You are absolutely correct, I'm not aware of Euclid applying to logic at all. I just couldn't think of a more appropriate word for communicating that specific kind of nonsense. 'Non-axiomatic' could've been cooler.
There are various non-classical logics, like dialethic systems, could allow for his statement to be correct by, for example, allowing both A and ~A. You could probably also find some way to prove using a system that limits the transitive property that the "Elon Musk" referred to in the documents is not the person speaking (or in any case cannot be proved to be the same, and therefore his statement cannot be proven false)
You are absolutely correct, I'm not aware of Euclid applying to logic at all. I just couldn't think of a more appropriate word for communicating that specific kind of nonsense. 'Non-axiomatic' could've been cooler.
There are various non-classical logics, like dialethic systems, could allow for his statement to be correct by, for example, allowing both A and ~A. You could probably also find some way to prove using a system that limits the transitive property that the "Elon Musk" referred to in the documents is not the person speaking (or in any case cannot be proved to be the same, and therefore his statement cannot be proven false)