Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!nntp.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: sci.logic,comp.theory,sci.math,comp.ai.philosophy Subject: Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2026 17:04:42 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 100 Message-ID: <1121ehs$1evpl$1@dont-email.me> References: <10s5lu4$sv0r$2@dont-email.me> <111ts0i$cg0f$1@dont-email.me> <111u8k6$ga34$1@dont-email.me> <111ucps$hp2k$1@dont-email.me> <111udj2$hesm$1@dont-email.me> <111ufqj$iml9$1@dont-email.me> <111uh9d$j1vo$1@dont-email.me> <111ui4p$jd5b$1@dont-email.me> <111uj0f$j560$1@dont-email.me> <111uj7p$jofl$1@dont-email.me> <111um90$kkcp$1@dont-email.me> <111umvc$kqhq$1@dont-email.me> <111uner$kkcp$2@dont-email.me> <111uolv$lb85$1@dont-email.me> <111urdj$l815$1@dont-email.me> <111us54$m8gu$1@dont-email.me> <111utja$l815$2@dont-email.me> <111uvhj$n34q$1@dont-email.me> <111v02k$l815$3@dont-email.me> <111v358$nv7c$1@dont-email.me> <111v4hh$l815$4@dont-email.me> <111v5ih$oh5p$1@dont-email.me> <111v7ku$l815$5@dont-email.me> <111v8ve$p8i6$1@dont-email.me> <111v9qs$l815$6@dont-email.me> <111vads$phuu$1@dont-email.me> <111var4$l815$7@dont-email.me> <111vbrb$prr1$1@dont-email.me> <1121br6$1e51b$1@dont-email.me> <1121ddj$1elir$1@dont-email.me> <1121e21$1epkc$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2026 22:04:44 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; logging-data="1539893"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX192hdYFKigkp+KuOAqU36lR"; posting-host="7e2ee5cc4913f1a2dea81c9b9460cec3" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:jNeyDtMeu/W+6IHkzP802CzLlc0= sha256:jPaHOjAso+nsfJ7PoJd/1q4pMyhaOtzHVNjM33bi3u0= sha1:Wj3FF2qDia6wkW1FJH55hRwQjnY= sha256:8hHXzfAcGtFwCj1ZZCCa7tjPoATy5U0r+WLbPK9Heeg= sha1:qWiKgKSmhoGjhWdp2LvmZyJpwvA= In-Reply-To: <1121e21$1epkc$1@dont-email.me> X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Content-Language: en-US X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 260630-2, 6/30/2026), Outbound message Xref: csiph.com sci.logic:347239 comp.theory:142186 sci.math:645896 comp.ai.philosophy:34926 On 6/30/2026 4:56 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: > On 2026-06-30 15:45, olcott wrote: >> On 6/30/2026 4:18 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>> On 2026-06-29 21:06, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/29/2026 9:49 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>> On 2026-06-29 20:42, olcott wrote: >>> >>>>>> Those are specific concrete examples of how >>>>>> Proof Theoretic Semantics rejects expressions >>>>>> as Proof Theoretic Semantically incoherent. >>>>> >>>>> No, they are not. No author writing in the framework of proof- >>>>> theoretic semantics has ever offered those examples or comparable >>>>> examples or made any claims about 'rejecting expressions as proof >>>>> theoretic semantically incoherent'. And there's nothing incoherent >>>>> about the statement 'no number is equal to its successor' which is >>>>> the example under discussion. >>>>> >>>>> André >>>>> >>>> >>>> None-the-less what I have said remains completely true. >>>> What I have spent 28 years reverse-engineering from first >>>> principles is exactly that. That no one applied PTS >>>> exactly that way before does not mean that it is not >>>> exactly correct PTS. >>> >>> Unfortunately, your say so carries very little weight. >>> >> >> Yes. That is why I need to carefully find the exact >> text that backs me up. Because PTS has their own >> private author by author language it must be a >> work written for a general audience like this work. >> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >> >> >>> Would you agree that there is a difference between a statement being >>> false and a statement being meaningless? >>> >> >> PTS is the way that meaning actually works. We can make a >> simpler analogy in that English words are meaningless until >> they are defined. The PTS connection of an expression in >> Q to its axioms Q is analogous to the connection of an >> English word to its definition. A proof merely looks to >> see if a definition exists and if it does not then the >> English Word / Expression of Q remains meaningless. >> >> PTS counts a finite sequence of inference steps between >> an expression and a set of axioms as the definition of >> this expression. These are the two papers that establish >> this Definitional View. > > None of the above answers my question: > > Would you agree that there is a difference between a statement being > false and a statement being meaningless? > I don't answer dumb questions. That is why I am not responding to any posts besides yours. dbush has become a troll again. Here is meaningless: Iz droopingstin pathorm mopygird Here is false: bovine cows are a kind of race car. Please go back and carefully study my careful response. I very carefully composed exactly what constitutes meaning. Failing to meet that spec entails meaningless. > That's a simple yes/no question. If you want to append an explanation > that's fine, but please start your answer with either yes or no. > > André > -- Copyright 2026 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge. The complete structure of this system is now defined. The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is comprised of two types of relations between finite strings: (a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true. My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal language such as CycL of the Cyc project. (b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).