Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.math > #646048

Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics

From dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com>
Newsgroups sci.logic, comp.theory, sci.math, comp.ai.philosophy
Subject Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics
Date 2026-07-02 18:47 -0400
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <1126pp6$2up1c$3@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References (25 earlier) <1126lsm$2v2rf$1@dont-email.me> <1126n0h$2up1c$1@dont-email.me> <1126nqq$2vm0f$1@dont-email.me> <1126ot8$2up1c$2@dont-email.me> <1126p2q$2vvr2$1@dont-email.me>

Cross-posted to 4 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On 7/2/2026 6:35 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/2/2026 5:32 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 7/2/2026 6:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/2/2026 4:59 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 7/2/2026 5:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/2/2026 4:23 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/2/2026 5:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/2/2026 3:54 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2026 4:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2026 2:52 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2026 3:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2026 1:22 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2026 2:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2026 11:55 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2026 12:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2026 11:04 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2026 10:51 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2026 1:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/07/2026 07:03, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/1/2026 11:01 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/1/2026 11:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/1/2026 10:43 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/1/2026 11:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/1/2026 10:18 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/1/2026 11:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/1/2026 10:00 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/1/2026 10:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/1/2026 9:36 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/1/2026 7:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/1/2026 4:15 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/1/2026 5:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/1/2026 3:57 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/1/2026 4:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/1/2026 3:37 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/1/2026 4:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/1/2026 3:13 PM, André G. Isaak 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-01 13:53, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/1/2026 2:31 PM, André G. Isaak 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-01 12:51, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/1/2026 1:45 PM, André G. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-01 12:15, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/1/2026 2:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The same thing as: "cats are 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animals" expressed in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> English has no English meaning 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in Chinese.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't ask for an example.  I 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> asked for a definition of what 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it mean for the truth value of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a statement to not exist in a 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formal system.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm actually not convinced that 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott understands what a 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition is. I've frequently 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> asked him for definitions and he 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> invariably responds with an 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example or an analogy (assuming 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he responds at all). He doesn't 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get that examples don't take the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> place of definitions. Examples 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be useful for clarifying 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions, but they aren't 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particularly useful on their own.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You want a definition look-it-up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Until someone publishes an Olcott 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to Standard English dictionary, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this isn't really an option.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> True(L, X) ≡ ∃Γ ⊆ BaseFacts(L) (Γ ⊢ 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> X) // copyright Olcott 2018
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has been updated to this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> True(L, X):= ∃Γ ⊆ AtomicFacts(L) (Γ 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⊢ X)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That claims what it means to have 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the truth value 'true' (or at least 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it would if you defined AtomicFacts 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a coherent way). It doesn't in 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any way clarify what you think it 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> means for something to not have a 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth value.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When I define a term hundreds of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> times and you did
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not bother to pay attention that is 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your mistake
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and your fault.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You gave no such definition of what it 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> means for the truth value of a 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement to not exist in a formal 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A valid answer would look something 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like this:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "The truth value of a statement does 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not exist in a formal system when ..."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now complete the sentence.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is neither provable nor refutable in F.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good.  So when you say "The truth value 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of (∀ x, S(x) ≠ x) does not exist in Q", 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you mean "(∀ x, S(x) ≠ x) is unprovable 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in Q", which is commonly known.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So once again, you're saying the same 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thing as everyone else but using 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not really. It is normally thought of as 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undecidable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning that Q is incomplete meaning that 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Q is deficient.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> False.  It means that there are statements 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the language of Q that have *only* an 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite connection to the axioms of the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OK, I verified that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Halting Problem counter-example input 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which starts with the assumption that an 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> algorithm H exists that meets the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following requirements:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> immutable sequence of instructions) X 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> described as <X> with input Y:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A solution to the halting problem is an 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> algorithm H that computes the following 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mapping:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halts when executed directly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not halt when executed directly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure and we could equally start with the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requirement
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to prove that there exists a natural number 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > 3 and < 2.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I really don't see how everyone did not 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> immediately see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the requirement for H to correctly 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> report the halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> status of input D that does the opposite of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reports is a moronically stupid requirement 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> within the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first five minutes that this requirement 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was made.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, you don't understand that if 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this was algorithm H:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I spent 10,000 hours on it over 22 years.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And still don't understand that this algorithm:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> void D(ptr *I)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      ptr *X = D;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      ptr *Y = I;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      int result;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>          result = 0;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      if (result == 1) {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>          while (1);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is the counter example input to this algorithm:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int H(ptr *X, ptr *Y)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      int result;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>          result = 0;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      return result;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is just nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thereby proving that you've misunderstood the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting problem for the last 22 years.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> D(D);   // merely halts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(D,D); // merely returns 0 and never looks at D(D)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And algorithm H is wrong about algorithm D because 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> algorithm D contains a copy of algorithm H and 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does the opposite.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You just don't know jack shit dufus.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have been a professional C programmer since 1986.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Says the person that just demonstrated that they 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't know the difference between an algorithm and a 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> C function.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Back to being ignored for trolling again.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe by someone but you are still far from being 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignored by everone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you know enough about C to understand that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dbush example was foolish nonsense when proposed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to show the halting problem counter-example?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It perfectly illustrates an algorithm that attempts to 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be a halt decider, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ridiculously stupid. Your H does not even look at its input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Algorithm H doesn't need to read its inputs in order to 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> map all inputs to non-halting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also your D simply stops running I ran it to verify.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Verifying that algorithm H doesn't correctly report what 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> algorithm D does, as per the design of algorithm D.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Still no reply to this, so I have to assume you agree it's 
>>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am trying to keep liars from killing the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> whole fucking planet by making truth computable
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Which can't be done as proved by Turing / Godel / Tarksi and 
>>>>>>>>>>>> others.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> By proving the errors in logic I can make
>>>>>>>>>>> logic into correct reasoning. That most
>>>>>>>>>>> logic people are a herd of sheep that would
>>>>>>>>>>> gladly leap off the POE cliff when that is
>>>>>>>>>>> what their herd accepts makes correcting this
>>>>>>>>>>> error too fucking difficult.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There is no error.  The POE follows from a series of truth 
>>>>>>>>>> preserving operations 
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> To say this objectively classical logic is objectively incorrect
>>>>>>>>> when it diverges from what correct reasoning would be while
>>>>>>>>> retaining the full English semantics of the terms.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (P ∧ ¬P) ⊢ Q  is ridiculously stupid when we plug English
>>>>>>>>> sentences in for P and Q and use semantic entailment in English
>>>>>>>>> as the measure of correct reasoning.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We already did that and you got confused, calling it a mind game 
>>>>>>>> (see below):
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The confusing part is how an intelligent person can
>>>>>>> accept POE as correct for more than sixty seconds.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Every average third grader knows that a contradiction
>>>>>> States that both a statement and its negation are true.  And if a 
>>>>>> formal system can reach a contradiction through a series of truth 
>>>>>> preserving operations from its axioms, that means both statements 
>>>>>> are proven true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Every third grader knows that it must have fucked up somewhere.
>>>>
>>>> Your intuition fails you.  It just means that the axioms of the 
>>>> system in question are inconsistent.  And the principle of explosion 
>>>> can be used to show that an inconsistent system is useless.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It makes more sense to use the ordinary meaning
>>> of contradiction:
>>>
>>> When-so-ever two sentences contradict each other
>>> at least one of them is false.
>>
>> Whatever you call it, if the axioms of a formal system can prove both 
>> X and ~X, then the principle of explosion can be used to show that 
>> system is useless.
>>
> 
> X & ~X proves FALSE.
> How can anyone that is not nuts possibly think otherwise?

Assuming that X & ~X has been proven from the axioms of a formal system, 
further truth preserving operations leads to the principle of explosion.

That it appears counterintuitive does not mean it is incorrect.  You 
were challenged to find a step that was not truth preserving and you 
were unable to do so.

Back to sci.math | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-20 11:57 -0500
  Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-04-21 09:41 +0300
    Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-21 08:33 -0500
      Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-04-22 10:19 +0300
        Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-22 02:48 -0500
          Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-04-22 11:19 +0300
            Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-22 08:17 -0500
              Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-04-23 10:06 +0300
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-23 08:49 -0500
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-04-24 09:33 +0300
          Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-04-22 17:06 -0600
            Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-22 20:21 -0500
              Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-04-24 00:19 -0600
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-04-24 21:12 -0700
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-04-24 21:14 -0700
            Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-22 18:25 -0700
              Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-22 18:29 -0700
            Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-06-20 17:50 +0100
              Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 12:32 -0500
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-06-27 07:53 +0100
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 07:19 -0700
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 09:50 -0500
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-28 11:39 +0300
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-28 21:52 -0500
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-29 09:14 +0300
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-29 08:29 -0500
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-06-29 11:05 -0600
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-29 13:16 -0500
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-06-29 12:29 -0600
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-29 14:08 -0500
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-06-29 13:33 -0600
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-29 14:47 -0500
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-06-29 14:02 -0600
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-29 15:06 -0500
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-06-29 14:58 -0600
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-29 16:10 -0500
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-06-29 15:18 -0600
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-29 16:39 -0500
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-06-29 16:25 -0600
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-29 17:38 -0500
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-06-29 17:03 -0600
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-29 18:36 -0500
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-06-29 17:45 -0600
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-29 19:37 -0500
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-06-29 19:01 -0600
                The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-29 20:19 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-06-29 19:54 -0600
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-29 21:17 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-06-29 20:31 -0600
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-29 21:42 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-06-29 20:49 -0600
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-29 22:06 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-06-30 15:18 -0600
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 16:45 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-06-30 15:56 -0600
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 17:04 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 22:34 -0400
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 21:57 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 23:02 -0400
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 22:10 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 23:17 -0400
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 22:49 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 00:01 -0400
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 23:20 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 07:55 -0400
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 09:40 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 13:33 -0400
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 13:01 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-01 12:10 -0600
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 13:20 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 14:34 -0400
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 13:53 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 14:57 -0400
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 14:06 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-01 12:40 -0600
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 13:50 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-01 13:23 -0600
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 14:47 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-01 14:11 -0600
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 15:28 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-01 14:50 -0600
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 15:52 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-01 15:10 -0600
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 17:43 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-01 17:09 -0600
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 19:05 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-01 18:39 -0600
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 20:01 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-01 19:23 -0600
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 21:03 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 00:02 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-03 08:45 -0600
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 11:48 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-03 11:17 -0600
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 13:12 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-03 12:21 -0600
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 13:38 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-03 12:46 -0600
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 15:43 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-03 15:22 -0600
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 20:11 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-04 11:49 +0300
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 12:13 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-06 10:59 +0300
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 09:36 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-08 10:42 +0300
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 14:15 -0400
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 13:21 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 14:35 -0400
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 13:54 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 14:59 -0400
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 14:09 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 15:19 -0400
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 14:44 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 15:52 -0400
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 15:23 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 16:31 -0400
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 15:42 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-07-01 19:18 +0000
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-01 12:45 -0600
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 13:51 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 14:56 -0400
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 14:02 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 15:05 -0400
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-01 13:31 -0600
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 14:53 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-01 14:13 -0600
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 15:29 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 16:37 -0400
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 15:50 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 16:57 -0400
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 16:04 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 17:15 -0400
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 18:37 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 22:36 -0400
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 21:53 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 23:00 -0400
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 22:17 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 23:18 -0400
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 22:29 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 23:34 -0400
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 22:37 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 23:43 -0400
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 22:59 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 00:01 -0400
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 23:03 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-02 09:57 +0300
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 09:51 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 12:04 -0400
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 11:52 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 12:55 -0400
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 13:13 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 14:22 -0400
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 14:33 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 15:52 -0400
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 15:53 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 16:54 -0400
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 16:12 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 17:23 -0400
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 16:40 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 17:59 -0400
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 17:13 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 18:32 -0400
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 17:35 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 18:47 -0400
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 17:53 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 18:59 -0400
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 18:49 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 20:03 -0400
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-03 12:22 +0300
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 10:36 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 11:50 -0400
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 11:52 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 13:10 -0400
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 13:10 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 14:18 -0400
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 13:36 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 14:40 -0400
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-03 12:47 -0600
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 17:37 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-03 16:51 -0600
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 20:52 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 21:58 -0400
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 21:05 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 22:19 -0400
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 21:37 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 22:43 -0400
                The truth about the halting problem counter-example input olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 22:11 -0500
                Re: The truth about the halting problem counter-example input dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 23:23 -0400
                Re: The truth about the halting problem counter-example input Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-04 11:58 +0300
                Re: The truth about the halting problem counter-example input olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 12:16 -0500
                Re: The truth about the halting problem counter-example input Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-06 11:07 +0300
                Re: The truth about the halting problem counter-example input olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 10:18 -0500
                Re: The truth about the halting problem counter-example input Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-08 10:45 +0300
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-04 10:48 +0300
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 11:58 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 13:07 -0400
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-06 11:11 +0300
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 10:27 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-08 10:48 +0300
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-04 10:46 +0300
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 11:55 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-06 11:24 +0300
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 10:30 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 09:23 -0700
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 11:57 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-08 10:55 +0300
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 20:10 -0400
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 20:11 -0400
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 21:02 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 22:18 -0400
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics Brenden Jafarov <rnarnj@rbn.ru> - 2026-07-04 12:47 +0000
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-04 10:43 +0300
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 11:52 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 13:04 -0400
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-06 11:28 +0300
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 14:27 -0400
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 13:45 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 14:53 -0400
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 15:35 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 16:59 -0400
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-04 10:57 +0300
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-04 10:55 +0300
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 12:01 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 13:10 -0400
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-06 11:37 +0300
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 10:33 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-08 10:59 +0300
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 14:08 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 15:12 -0400
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-04 11:00 +0300
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 12:03 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-06 11:55 +0300
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 10:38 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-08 11:09 +0300
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-04 10:41 +0300
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 08:38 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 09:40 -0400
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-06 12:00 +0300
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 10:39 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-08 11:14 +0300
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-04 10:37 +0300
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 08:32 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 09:37 -0400
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-06 12:06 +0300
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-06 12:03 +0300
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-06-30 21:31 -0600
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 23:17 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 23:04 -0400
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 22:11 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 16:56 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-06-30 16:06 -0600
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 17:08 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 17:42 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-06-30 16:51 -0600
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 21:07 -0500
                Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-29 21:26 -0500
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-30 11:18 +0300
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 08:58 -0500
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-01 10:24 +0300
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 10:16 -0500
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-02 09:55 +0300
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 09:49 -0500
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-03 12:28 +0300
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 10:38 -0500
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-03 11:35 -0600
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 13:20 -0500
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-03 12:37 -0600
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 15:13 -0500
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-03 14:32 -0600
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 20:08 -0500
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-04 11:06 +0300
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 12:07 -0500
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 13:11 -0400
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 16:01 -0500
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-06 12:25 +0300
                Terms-of-the-art are Liars that violate the preexisting order of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 10:54 -0500
                Re: Terms-of-the-art are Liars that violate the preexisting order of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-08 11:22 +0300
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 12:11 -0500
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-08 11:27 +0300
                Terms-Of-The-Art are Liars olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 16:12 -0500
                Re: Terms-Of-The-Art are Liars dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 17:30 -0400
                Re: Terms-Of-The-Art are Liars Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-07-05 14:59 +0100
                Re: Terms-Of-The-Art are Liars olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-05 11:23 -0500
                Re: Terms-Of-The-Art are Liars dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-05 10:19 -0400
                Re: Terms-Of-The-Art are Liars olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-05 11:29 -0500
                Re: Terms-Of-The-Art are Liars dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-05 12:39 -0400
                Re: Terms-Of-The-Art are Liars "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-07-05 13:09 -0700
                Re: Terms-Of-The-Art are Liars Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-06 12:46 +0300
                Re: Terms-Of-The-Art are Liars olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 12:39 -0500
                Re: Terms-Of-The-Art are Liars Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-08 11:38 +0300
                Re: Terms-Of-The-Art are Liars "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-07-05 14:07 -0700
                Re: Terms-Of-The-Art are Liars Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-06 12:38 +0300
                Re: Terms-Of-The-Art are Liars dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-07-06 14:53 -0700
                Re: Terms-Of-The-Art are Liars olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 17:01 -0500
                Re: Terms-Of-The-Art are Liars "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-07-07 15:36 -0700
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-06 12:17 +0300
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 10:47 -0500
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-06 10:07 -0600
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 11:58 -0500
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-06 11:27 -0600
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 12:45 -0500
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-06 11:56 -0600
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 13:12 -0500
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-06 12:54 -0600
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 14:03 -0500
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-06 14:08 -0600
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 15:20 -0500
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-06 15:13 -0600
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 17:00 -0500
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-06 16:18 -0600
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 17:41 -0500
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-06 16:53 -0600
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 17:58 -0500
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-06 17:39 -0600
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 19:01 -0500
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 19:06 -0500
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-08 11:52 +0300
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-08 11:47 +0300
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-08 11:45 +0300
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-08 11:44 +0300
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-04 11:04 +0300
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-06-29 10:50 +0100
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-29 08:01 -0500
  Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Scott Hoge <nospam@nospam.com> - 2026-04-26 20:01 +0000
    Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-26 15:54 -0500
      Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-04-26 20:16 -0400
      Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-04-27 12:30 +0300
        Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-27 09:53 -0500
          Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Scott Hoge <nospam@nospam.com> - 2026-04-27 19:15 +0000
            Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-27 15:10 -0500
            Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-04-27 21:03 +0000
              Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-27 16:57 -0500
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-04-28 10:34 +0300
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-28 07:18 -0500
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-04-29 09:37 +0300
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-29 09:17 -0500
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-04-30 10:55 +0300
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-01 09:54 -0500
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-05-01 10:47 -0700
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-05-01 11:01 -0700
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-01 14:35 -0500
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-05-01 12:54 -0700
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-01 15:36 -0500
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-06-30 13:14 +0100
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-01 15:41 -0500
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-05-01 19:47 -0700
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-05-02 11:04 +0300
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-02 07:36 -0500
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-05-03 10:56 +0300
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-04-28 10:22 +0000
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-28 06:14 -0500
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-04-28 12:04 +0000
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-28 07:14 -0500
              Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Scott Hoge <nospam@nospam.com> - 2026-04-27 22:01 +0000
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-27 17:22 -0500
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-04-28 11:10 +0300
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-28 07:30 -0500
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-04-29 10:11 +0300
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-04-28 10:35 +0000
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Scott Hoge <nospam@nospam.com> - 2026-04-29 14:27 +0000
              Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-27 15:35 -0700
            Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2026-05-01 21:17 +0200
              Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-05-01 12:34 -0700
              Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-01 14:38 -0500
              Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Scott Hoge <nospam@nospam.com> - 2026-05-01 22:10 +0000
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2026-05-02 16:26 +0200
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-02 09:54 -0500
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Scott Hoge <nospam@nospam.com> - 2026-05-02 18:47 +0000
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-02 12:06 -0700
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2026-05-06 21:37 +0200
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA phoenix <j63840576@gmail.com> - 2026-05-06 13:48 -0600
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-05-06 12:59 -0700
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-06-30 16:10 +0100
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Scott Hoge <nospam@nospam.com> - 2026-05-07 01:12 +0000
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-07-04 16:31 +0100
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-07-05 15:52 +0100
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-07-05 17:31 +0100
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-05 11:33 -0500
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-07-05 12:56 -0700
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-05 15:25 -0500
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-07-05 14:30 -0700
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-05 16:45 -0500
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-07-05 15:15 -0700
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-05 17:55 -0500
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 09:16 -0700
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 11:54 -0500
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-06 12:58 +0300
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 12:49 -0500
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-08 12:00 +0300
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-07-06 14:19 +0100
                Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-05-02 20:56 -0700
    Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-06-30 06:54 +0100

csiph-web