Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.math > #645432 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-06-17 16:14 -0500 |
| Last post | 2026-06-23 09:26 +0300 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 347 — 10 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.math
Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-17 16:14 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-18 14:35 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-19 10:23 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-19 07:46 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-06-19 20:28 +0000
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-19 15:50 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-06-19 21:05 +0000
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-19 16:24 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-19 15:57 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-19 18:30 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-19 22:27 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 09:20 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-19 21:35 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-19 22:27 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-19 23:04 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 09:29 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 09:22 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-19 21:40 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-20 11:05 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 14:02 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 15:17 -0400
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 12:30 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 15:45 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 15:03 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 16:17 -0400
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 16:03 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 17:17 -0400
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-21 13:02 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-21 12:57 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 18:51 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 20:16 -0400
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-22 10:13 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 08:13 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 11:01 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 13:12 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 12:28 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-23 08:39 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-25 08:43 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-26 09:17 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 07:59 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-27 10:16 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-21 12:48 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 13:36 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics phoenix <j63840576@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 12:54 -0600
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-22 09:23 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 08:50 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-06-20 15:34 +0000
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 10:47 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-06-20 16:08 +0000
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 11:37 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-11 22:52 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-21 13:11 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 18:55 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-22 09:27 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 07:05 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-23 08:43 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- One-two punch Destroys Liars olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-23 09:38 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- One-two punch Destroys Liars Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-23 08:53 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 09:51 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-21 14:04 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 16:39 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics phoenix <j63840576@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 16:36 -0600
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 18:15 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics phoenix <j63840576@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 18:32 -0600
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 19:44 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-22 10:46 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 10:16 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-23 08:49 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-25 08:47 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-26 09:23 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 08:02 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-27 10:19 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 10:34 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 21:27 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 00:22 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 21:16 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-06-21 18:05 -0600
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 19:14 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-20 10:50 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 09:41 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-21 13:17 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 18:58 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-22 09:41 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 07:09 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-23 08:55 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-25 08:58 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-26 09:34 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 08:05 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-27 10:27 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 10:36 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-28 11:04 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-19 22:25 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 09:18 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 10:36 -0400
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 09:54 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 10:57 -0400
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 10:22 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 11:23 -0400
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 10:44 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 11:48 -0400
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 09:45 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 16:20 -0400
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 09:29 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 11:45 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 09:47 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 11:57 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 13:13 -0400
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 10:21 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 10:19 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 12:33 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 13:36 -0400
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 12:13 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-06-20 19:48 +0000
Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 16:00 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 17:19 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 16:30 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 17:34 -0400
Disjunction introduction --- new premise from out of no where olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 17:26 -0500
Re: Disjunction introduction --- new premise from out of no where dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 20:11 -0400
Re: Disjunction introduction --- new premise from out of no where olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 19:26 -0500
Re: Disjunction introduction --- new premise from out of no where dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 20:29 -0400
Re: Disjunction introduction --- new premise from out of no where olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 20:06 -0500
Re: Disjunction introduction --- new premise from out of no where dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 21:28 -0400
Re: Disjunction introduction --- new premise from out of no where olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 20:32 -0500
Re: Disjunction introduction --- new premise from out of no where dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 21:38 -0400
Re: Disjunction introduction --- new premise from out of no where olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 20:48 -0500
Re: Disjunction introduction --- new premise from out of no where dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 21:51 -0400
Re: Disjunction introduction --- new premise from out of no where "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-25 12:54 -0700
Re: Disjunction introduction --- new premise from out of no where olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-25 16:01 -0500
Re: Disjunction introduction --- new premise from out of no where olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-25 16:05 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-06-20 21:43 +0000
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 17:47 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-06-21 11:26 +0000
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 13:42 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction phoenix <j63840576@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 12:53 -0600
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-06-21 20:04 +0000
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 15:42 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-06-21 15:08 -0600
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 18:02 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-06-21 18:02 -0600
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge -- Kristen Welker olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 19:12 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge -- Kristen Welker dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 20:20 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-22 09:49 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 07:10 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-23 09:06 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-23 09:48 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-23 08:53 -0700
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-24 13:00 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-24 15:26 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-25 10:21 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-25 11:14 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-26 09:39 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 08:10 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 09:20 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 08:45 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 09:57 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 09:24 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 12:08 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 12:22 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 13:25 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 12:39 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 13:42 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 12:53 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 14:02 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-06-26 12:14 -0600
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 13:48 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 14:51 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 14:07 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 15:17 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 14:38 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 15:55 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 17:01 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 18:08 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 17:58 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 19:18 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 19:05 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 20:23 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 19:48 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 21:11 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 20:39 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 21:51 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 21:00 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 08:34 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-27 11:05 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 10:47 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 15:37 -0700
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 17:47 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 19:24 -0700
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 22:21 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 19:25 -0700
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-28 11:22 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-28 11:17 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-27 10:48 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 10:45 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-28 11:38 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-27 10:35 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 10:43 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 14:01 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 13:27 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 14:29 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 13:38 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 14:39 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 14:01 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 15:04 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 14:16 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 15:23 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 14:40 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 15:54 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 15:04 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 16:11 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 15:17 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 16:22 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 15:27 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 16:30 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 16:36 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 15:52 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 16:59 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 16:24 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 17:50 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 17:11 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 18:15 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 17:18 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 18:21 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 17:29 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 18:33 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 17:44 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 18:53 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 18:27 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 19:33 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 18:59 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 21:13 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 20:33 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-28 12:38 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-28 12:31 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-28 22:12 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-29 09:23 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-29 08:38 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-30 10:48 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 08:43 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-01 10:01 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 10:09 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-30 11:43 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 09:22 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-01 10:13 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 10:13 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-02 09:44 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 09:45 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 08:16 -0700
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 11:47 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-03 12:15 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-03 11:41 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 10:23 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 10:34 -0700
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 13:17 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 13:36 -0700
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 18:14 -0700
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-04 10:02 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-04 09:58 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 08:24 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-06 13:13 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 12:51 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-08 10:29 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-03 12:39 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 11:43 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-04 10:22 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 08:29 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-07-04 14:07 +0000
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 11:38 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-07-04 17:42 +0000
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-06 10:10 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 08:51 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-08 10:35 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-08 22:12 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-09 10:51 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-28 11:38 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-06-27 13:40 -0600
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 14:46 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-28 11:32 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-06-22 12:47 +0000
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 09:30 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-22 10:23 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 09:44 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-06-22 15:22 +0000
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 10:36 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 12:07 -0700
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 14:21 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-23 09:15 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-24 16:31 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-25 10:49 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-09 10:55 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-21 13:26 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-21 13:23 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 19:00 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-22 10:40 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 10:12 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-06-22 15:48 +0000
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 11:23 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-06-22 18:42 +0000
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 13:59 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-06-22 19:50 +0000
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 15:06 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-06-22 20:38 +0000
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 16:01 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 16:55 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 21:00 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 23:14 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 21:31 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-23 09:22 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-23 08:51 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-23 11:54 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-23 10:32 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-23 10:58 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-23 13:24 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 07:26 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-23 13:20 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-24 13:13 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-24 16:33 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs phoenix <j63840576@gmail.com> - 2026-06-24 18:28 -0600
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-25 10:29 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-25 11:16 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-26 09:45 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 08:15 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-27 11:13 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 07:25 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 10:53 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-28 12:51 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 06:23 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 09:53 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 10:36 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 19:47 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 22:01 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 05:13 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 09:59 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 10:00 -0700
DAG of all general knowledge that can be expressed in Language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 12:57 -0500
Re: DAG of all general knowledge that can be expressed in Language Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 12:31 -0700
Re: DAG of all general knowledge that can be expressed in Language "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 12:37 -0700
Re: DAG of all general knowledge that can be expressed in Language Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 13:16 -0700
Re: DAG of all general knowledge that can be expressed in Language "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 18:59 -0700
Re: DAG of all general knowledge that can be expressed in Language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 14:51 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-06-23 21:04 +0000
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-23 19:25 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 21:16 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 21:28 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 15:08 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-23 09:17 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-23 09:26 +0300
Page 15 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 Next page →
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-22 10:23 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction |
| Message-ID | <111anug$1bi0u$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645557 |
On 21/06/2026 23:42, olcott wrote: > On 6/21/2026 3:04 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> [ Followup-To: set ] >> >> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 6/21/2026 6:26 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> I just found the term: >>>>> "grounding in a proof theoretic atomic base" yesterday. >> >>>> You can find any number of terms. That doesn't mean you're capable of >>>> understanding them. >> >> >>> The above is the key reason why under PTS Gödel 1931 incompleteness >>> fails. >> >> I don't believe you. You have no respect for or understanding of the >> truth. If you really want to persuade anybody that PTS somehow causes >> Gödel's theorem not to hold, then cite an academic expert who'll have >> some credibility. >> >>> If they are mere gibberish words to you then you will not understand. >> >> You don't understand Proof-theoritic Semantics, and you certainly don't >> understand Gödel's Theorem, neither the theorem itself nor any proof of >> it. >> > It is a verified fact that Gödel's G is ungrounded > in the atomic base of PA. It is a verified fact that Gödel's completeness and incompleteness theorems are inevitable consequences of Peano arithmetic. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-22 09:44 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction |
| Message-ID | <111bhoh$1jf8n$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645584 |
On 6/22/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 21/06/2026 23:42, olcott wrote: >> On 6/21/2026 3:04 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>> >>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 6/21/2026 6:26 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> I just found the term: >>>>>> "grounding in a proof theoretic atomic base" yesterday. >>> >>>>> You can find any number of terms. That doesn't mean you're capable of >>>>> understanding them. >>> >>> >>>> The above is the key reason why under PTS Gödel 1931 incompleteness >>>> fails. >>> >>> I don't believe you. You have no respect for or understanding of the >>> truth. If you really want to persuade anybody that PTS somehow causes >>> Gödel's theorem not to hold, then cite an academic expert who'll have >>> some credibility. >>> >>>> If they are mere gibberish words to you then you will not understand. >>> >>> You don't understand Proof-theoritic Semantics, and you certainly don't >>> understand Gödel's Theorem, neither the theorem itself nor any proof of >>> it. >>> >> It is a verified fact that Gödel's G is ungrounded >> in the atomic base of PA. > > It is a verified fact that Gödel's completeness and incompleteness > theorems are inevitable consequences of Peano arithmetic. > Within the foundation of Truth Conditional Semantics this is true. Within the foundation of strict Proof Theoretic Semantics this is false. Some PTS called base-extension semantics seem to think that they can extend PA so that it is different and not clearly acknowledge that they converted PA into PA+. They would then say that G is grounded in PA when they actually mean that G becomes grounded in the modified PA+. -- 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).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-22 15:22 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction |
| Message-ID | <111bk01$f9p$2@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #645594 |
[ Followup-To: set ] In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 6/22/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: > > It is a verified fact that Gödel's completeness and incompleteness > > theorems are inevitable consequences of Peano arithmetic. > Within the foundation of Truth Conditional Semantics > this is true. Within the foundation of strict Proof > Theoretic Semantics this is false. You have not understood Mikko's statement. It is a VERIFIED FACT that Gödel's completeness and incompleteness theorems are inevitable consequences of Peano arithmetic. You are clueless about Gödel's theorems therefore are unqualified to make definitive comments about them. If you wish to demonstrate the highly unlikely proposition that PTS somehow renders Gödel's theorems inapplicable, you must prove that. Since you yourself are incapable of a mathematical proof, you must cite some expert, somebody who understands both Gödel's therems and PTS, who can explain these things. You understand neither of them. > Some PTS called base-extension semantics seem to think > that they can extend PA so that it is different and > not clearly acknowledge that they converted PA into PA+. > They would then say that G is grounded in PA when > they actually mean that G becomes grounded in the > modified PA+. What is the nature of this alleged extension? PA is a set of axioms from which, amongst other things, Gödel's theorems can be proven. You seem to be asserting that for this to work, some additional axioms are needed. What is the nature of these extra axioms? Can you give an example of one? > -- > Copyright 2026 Olcott -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-22 10:36 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction |
| Message-ID | <111bkq5$1kfo9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645598 |
On 6/22/2026 10:22 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > [ Followup-To: set ] > > In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 6/22/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: > >>> It is a verified fact that Gödel's completeness and incompleteness >>> theorems are inevitable consequences of Peano arithmetic. > >> Within the foundation of Truth Conditional Semantics >> this is true. Within the foundation of strict Proof >> Theoretic Semantics this is false. > > You have not understood Mikko's statement. It is a VERIFIED FACT that > Gödel's completeness and incompleteness theorems are inevitable > consequences of Peano arithmetic. Within the foundation of Truth Conditional Semantics (TCS) and not Within the foundation of strict Proof Theoretic (PTS) Semantics. When G is unprovable in PA then in strict PTS G is ungrounded in PA. There is a sub field of PTS called Base-Extension Semantics (B-eS) that is not strict PTS. (B-eS) extends PA to become PA+ then G becomes grounded in PA+. This is the same thing as saying that G is provable in meta-math thus making it true in PA. -- 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).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-22 12:07 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction |
| Message-ID | <5tycndslC-eVFaT3nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #645599 |
On 06/22/2026 08:36 AM, olcott wrote: > On 6/22/2026 10:22 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> [ Followup-To: set ] >> >> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 6/22/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >> >>>> It is a verified fact that Gödel's completeness and incompleteness >>>> theorems are inevitable consequences of Peano arithmetic. >> >>> Within the foundation of Truth Conditional Semantics >>> this is true. Within the foundation of strict Proof >>> Theoretic Semantics this is false. >> >> You have not understood Mikko's statement. It is a VERIFIED FACT that >> Gödel's completeness and incompleteness theorems are inevitable >> consequences of Peano arithmetic. > Within the foundation of Truth Conditional Semantics (TCS) > and not Within the foundation of strict Proof Theoretic (PTS) > Semantics. When G is unprovable in PA then in strict PTS > G is ungrounded in PA. > > There is a sub field of PTS called Base-Extension Semantics > (B-eS) that is not strict PTS. (B-eS) extends PA to become > PA+ then G becomes grounded in PA+. This is the same thing > as saying that G is provable in meta-math thus making it > true in PA. > "Meta" math? Is that the one where you hire a kid off the street to promote a venue and he takes the fliers and dumps them in the first trash-bin and walks off with the money? Sort of "Instant Audience" instead of "Artificial Intelligence"?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-22 14:21 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction |
| Message-ID | <111c20j$1oq3b$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645606 |
On 6/22/2026 2:07 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 06/22/2026 08:36 AM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/22/2026 10:22 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>> >>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 6/22/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> >>>>> It is a verified fact that Gödel's completeness and incompleteness >>>>> theorems are inevitable consequences of Peano arithmetic. >>> >>>> Within the foundation of Truth Conditional Semantics >>>> this is true. Within the foundation of strict Proof >>>> Theoretic Semantics this is false. >>> >>> You have not understood Mikko's statement. It is a VERIFIED FACT that >>> Gödel's completeness and incompleteness theorems are inevitable >>> consequences of Peano arithmetic. >> Within the foundation of Truth Conditional Semantics (TCS) >> and not Within the foundation of strict Proof Theoretic (PTS) >> Semantics. When G is unprovable in PA then in strict PTS >> G is ungrounded in PA. >> >> There is a sub field of PTS called Base-Extension Semantics >> (B-eS) that is not strict PTS. (B-eS) extends PA to become >> PA+ then G becomes grounded in PA+. This is the same thing >> as saying that G is provable in meta-math thus making it >> true in PA. >> > > "Meta" math? https://monoskop.org/images/9/93/Kurt_G%C3%B6del_On_Formally_Undecidable_Propositions_of_Principia_Mathematica_and_Related_Systems_1992.pdf See PDF page 10 > > Is that the one where you hire a kid off the street > to promote a venue and he takes the fliers and > dumps them in the first trash-bin and walks off > with the money? > > Sort of "Instant Audience" instead of "Artificial Intelligence"? > > > -- 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).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-23 09:15 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction |
| Message-ID | <111d8a4$22548$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645594 |
On 22/06/2026 17:44, olcott wrote: > On 6/22/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 21/06/2026 23:42, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/21/2026 3:04 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>>> >>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 6/21/2026 6:26 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> I just found the term: >>>>>>> "grounding in a proof theoretic atomic base" yesterday. >>>> >>>>>> You can find any number of terms. That doesn't mean you're >>>>>> capable of >>>>>> understanding them. >>>> >>>> >>>>> The above is the key reason why under PTS Gödel 1931 incompleteness >>>>> fails. >>>> >>>> I don't believe you. You have no respect for or understanding of the >>>> truth. If you really want to persuade anybody that PTS somehow causes >>>> Gödel's theorem not to hold, then cite an academic expert who'll have >>>> some credibility. >>>> >>>>> If they are mere gibberish words to you then you will not understand. >>>> >>>> You don't understand Proof-theoritic Semantics, and you certainly don't >>>> understand Gödel's Theorem, neither the theorem itself nor any proof of >>>> it. >>>> >>> It is a verified fact that Gödel's G is ungrounded >>> in the atomic base of PA. >> >> It is a verified fact that Gödel's completeness and incompleteness >> theorems are inevitable consequences of Peano arithmetic. > > Within the foundation of Truth Conditional Semantics > this is true. Within the foundation of strict Proof > Theoretic Semantics this is false. The proof that there are unprovable sentences with unprovable negations does not refer to any semantics. That a sentence or its negation is true is a feature of many semantic systems and in particular of the arithemtic semantics of Peano arithmetic. When people want to know how a function could be computed or whether it can be computed at all they only care about arithmetic and computational semantics. Proof theoretic semnatics is irrelevant. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-24 16:31 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction |
| Message-ID | <111hibk$3b3a7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645627 |
On 6/24/2026 5:06 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 23/06/2026 17:52, olcott wrote: >> On 6/23/2026 1:15 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 22/06/2026 17:44, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/22/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 21/06/2026 23:42, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/21/2026 3:04 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/21/2026 6:26 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> I just found the term: >>>>>>>>>> "grounding in a proof theoretic atomic base" yesterday. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You can find any number of terms. That doesn't mean you're >>>>>>>>> capable of >>>>>>>>> understanding them. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The above is the key reason why under PTS Gödel 1931 incompleteness >>>>>>>> fails. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't believe you. You have no respect for or understanding of >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> truth. If you really want to persuade anybody that PTS somehow >>>>>>> causes >>>>>>> Gödel's theorem not to hold, then cite an academic expert who'll >>>>>>> have >>>>>>> some credibility. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If they are mere gibberish words to you then you will not >>>>>>>> understand. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You don't understand Proof-theoritic Semantics, and you certainly >>>>>>> don't >>>>>>> understand Gödel's Theorem, neither the theorem itself nor any >>>>>>> proof of >>>>>>> it. >>>>>>> >>>>>> It is a verified fact that Gödel's G is ungrounded >>>>>> in the atomic base of PA. >>>>> >>>>> It is a verified fact that Gödel's completeness and incompleteness >>>>> theorems are inevitable consequences of Peano arithmetic. >>>> >>>> Within the foundation of Truth Conditional Semantics >>>> this is true. Within the foundation of strict Proof >>>> Theoretic Semantics this is false. >>> >>> The proof that there are unprovable sentences with unprovable >>> negations does not refer to any semantics. That a sentence or >>> its negation is true is a feature of many semantic systems and >>> in particular of the arithemtic semantics of Peano arithmetic. >>> >>> When people want to know how a function could be computed or whether it >>> can be computed at all they only care about arithmetic and computational >>> semantics. Proof theoretic semnatics is irrelevant. >> >> Proof-theoretic semantics is an alternative foundation >> for mathematics replacing truth conditional semantics. > > It does not provide any useful alternative when no semantics is needed. That G is true in the standard model of arithmetic cannot possibly exist when model theory is replaced with proof theoretic semantics. > It is not shown to offer anything useful with problems with theal world > semantics, which are the most important ones. > -- 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).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-25 10:49 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction |
| Message-ID | <111imhf$3joqk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645650 |
On 25/06/2026 00:31, olcott wrote: > On 6/24/2026 5:06 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 23/06/2026 17:52, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/23/2026 1:15 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 22/06/2026 17:44, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/22/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 21/06/2026 23:42, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/21/2026 3:04 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/21/2026 6:26 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> I just found the term: >>>>>>>>>>> "grounding in a proof theoretic atomic base" yesterday. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You can find any number of terms. That doesn't mean you're >>>>>>>>>> capable of >>>>>>>>>> understanding them. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The above is the key reason why under PTS Gödel 1931 >>>>>>>>> incompleteness >>>>>>>>> fails. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I don't believe you. You have no respect for or understanding >>>>>>>> of the >>>>>>>> truth. If you really want to persuade anybody that PTS somehow >>>>>>>> causes >>>>>>>> Gödel's theorem not to hold, then cite an academic expert who'll >>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>> some credibility. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If they are mere gibberish words to you then you will not >>>>>>>>> understand. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You don't understand Proof-theoritic Semantics, and you >>>>>>>> certainly don't >>>>>>>> understand Gödel's Theorem, neither the theorem itself nor any >>>>>>>> proof of >>>>>>>> it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is a verified fact that Gödel's G is ungrounded >>>>>>> in the atomic base of PA. >>>>>> >>>>>> It is a verified fact that Gödel's completeness and incompleteness >>>>>> theorems are inevitable consequences of Peano arithmetic. >>>>> >>>>> Within the foundation of Truth Conditional Semantics >>>>> this is true. Within the foundation of strict Proof >>>>> Theoretic Semantics this is false. >>>> >>>> The proof that there are unprovable sentences with unprovable >>>> negations does not refer to any semantics. That a sentence or >>>> its negation is true is a feature of many semantic systems and >>>> in particular of the arithemtic semantics of Peano arithmetic. >>>> >>>> When people want to know how a function could be computed or whether it >>>> can be computed at all they only care about arithmetic and >>>> computational >>>> semantics. Proof theoretic semnatics is irrelevant. >>> >>> Proof-theoretic semantics is an alternative foundation >>> for mathematics replacing truth conditional semantics. >> >> It does not provide any useful alternative when no semantics is needed. > > That G is true in the standard model of arithmetic > cannot possibly exist when model theory is replaced > with proof theoretic semantics. That G is true in the standard model of arithmetic (and every other model where the negation of G is not true) does not involve proof theoretic semantics but the semantics of the standard model (or whatever model one wnats to consider). But the main result that neither G nor its negation is provable does not involve any semantics at all. The rest is just simple corollaries. >> It is not shown to offer anything useful with problems with theal world >> semantics, which are the most important ones. It still isn't. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-09 10:55 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction |
| Message-ID | <112nk5k$7ndt$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645594 |
On 22/06/2026 17:44, olcott wrote: > On 6/22/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 21/06/2026 23:42, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/21/2026 3:04 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>>> >>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 6/21/2026 6:26 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> I just found the term: >>>>>>> "grounding in a proof theoretic atomic base" yesterday. >>>> >>>>>> You can find any number of terms. That doesn't mean you're >>>>>> capable of >>>>>> understanding them. >>>> >>>> >>>>> The above is the key reason why under PTS Gödel 1931 incompleteness >>>>> fails. >>>> >>>> I don't believe you. You have no respect for or understanding of the >>>> truth. If you really want to persuade anybody that PTS somehow causes >>>> Gödel's theorem not to hold, then cite an academic expert who'll have >>>> some credibility. >>>> >>>>> If they are mere gibberish words to you then you will not understand. >>>> >>>> You don't understand Proof-theoritic Semantics, and you certainly don't >>>> understand Gödel's Theorem, neither the theorem itself nor any proof of >>>> it. >>>> >>> It is a verified fact that Gödel's G is ungrounded >>> in the atomic base of PA. >> >> It is a verified fact that Gödel's completeness and incompleteness >> theorems are inevitable consequences of Peano arithmetic. > > Within the foundation of Truth Conditional Semantics > this is true. Within the foundation of strict Proof > Theoretic Semantics this is false. No, it is not false because the opposite is not provable. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-21 13:26 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <1118e8p$nkt6$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645490 |
On 20/06/2026 18:22, olcott wrote: > On 6/20/2026 9:57 AM, dbush wrote: >> On 6/20/2026 10:54 AM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/20/2026 9:36 AM, dbush wrote: >>>> On 6/20/2026 10:18 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Better than the POE yet not as sound as this: >>>>> Irrelevance Logic was always a stupid idea. >>>>> >>>>> Disjunction introduction: P ∴ P ∨ Q >>>>> is not allowed. No new premises can be inserted. >>>>> This by itself prevent POE from being derived. >>>>> >>>>> (P ∧ ¬P) ⊢ ⊥ // out of which nothing comes >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Is the following statement true? >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------- >>>> Earth is the third planet from the sun. >>>> -------------------------------------- >>>> >>> >>> Yes that is one element of what are now called atomic facts. >> >> Good. Let's take that as a given. >> >> Is the following statement true? >> >> -------------------------------------- >> At least one of the following statements is true: >> - Earth is the third planet from the sun. >> - The moon is made of green cheese. >> -------------------------------------- > > It is hypothesized that all of the empirical atomic facts > are encoded. This means that what the Moon is made of is > already encoded. That an irrelevancy is posted as a response means that the question is too difficult to Olcott's little brain. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-21 13:23 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <1118e2p$nkt6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645480 |
On 20/06/2026 17:18, olcott wrote: > On 6/20/2026 12:25 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >> On 06/18/2026 12:35 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>> Making sure to leave out >>>> >>>> Proof-theoretic semantics >>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>> >>> Some people only memorize conventional views and >>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>> This seems to be the rigidly conformist and memorize >>> by rote mindset. >> >> Hm. Here there is a rather "rigidly conformist" approach, >> and "an extreme rationalism", though, it's not the usual. >> >> a principle of inverse >> supplants, subsumes, and includes >> a principle of non-contradiction/excluded-middle > > Modern Logic has always simply ignored that an > expression may be semantically incoherent because > logic has always ignored semantics and focused > on syntax. Modern logic has hot ignored that without semantics there cannot be any semantic incoherence. That simply need not be said very often because evrybody already knows. If something is semantically incoherent then you are applying incoherent semantics. Gödel proved that every consistent first order theory has a model. That means that a consisten first order theory cannot be semantically incoherent. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-21 19:00 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1119tvn$15c1h$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645546 |
On 6/21/2026 5:23 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 20/06/2026 17:18, olcott wrote: >> On 6/20/2026 12:25 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>> On 06/18/2026 12:35 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>> Making sure to leave out >>>>> >>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics >>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>> >>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>> This seems to be the rigidly conformist and memorize >>>> by rote mindset. >>> >>> Hm. Here there is a rather "rigidly conformist" approach, >>> and "an extreme rationalism", though, it's not the usual. >>> >>> a principle of inverse >>> supplants, subsumes, and includes >>> a principle of non-contradiction/excluded-middle >> >> Modern Logic has always simply ignored that an >> expression may be semantically incoherent because >> logic has always ignored semantics and focused >> on syntax. > > Modern logic has always put semantics outside of the formal system in a separate model. PTS does not do that. > > Gödel proved that every consistent first order theory has a model. > That means that a consisten first order theory cannot be semantically > incoherent. > Like I just said. -- 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).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-22 10:40 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <111aosr$1br7s$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645567 |
On 22/06/2026 03:00, olcott wrote: > On 6/21/2026 5:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 20/06/2026 17:18, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/20/2026 12:25 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>> On 06/18/2026 12:35 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>>> Making sure to leave out >>>>>> >>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>> >>>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>> This seems to be the rigidly conformist and memorize >>>>> by rote mindset. >>>> >>>> Hm. Here there is a rather "rigidly conformist" approach, >>>> and "an extreme rationalism", though, it's not the usual. >>>> >>>> a principle of inverse >>>> supplants, subsumes, and includes >>>> a principle of non-contradiction/excluded-middle >>> >>> Modern Logic has always simply ignored that an >>> expression may be semantically incoherent because >>> logic has always ignored semantics and focused >>> on syntax. >> >> Modern logic has > > always put semantics outside of the formal system > in a separate model. And that way avoided semantic incoherence in formal systems. > PTS does not do that. >> Gödel proved that every consistent first order theory has a model. >> That means that a consisten first order theory cannot be semantically >> incoherent. > Like I just said. Therefore we can trust that in every theory that can express the truths of the natural numbers there is a true sentence that cannot be proven. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-22 10:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <111bjdq$1k1da$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645586 |
On 6/22/2026 2:40 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 22/06/2026 03:00, olcott wrote: >> On 6/21/2026 5:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 20/06/2026 17:18, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/20/2026 12:25 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>> On 06/18/2026 12:35 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>>>> Making sure to leave out >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>> This seems to be the rigidly conformist and memorize >>>>>> by rote mindset. >>>>> >>>>> Hm. Here there is a rather "rigidly conformist" approach, >>>>> and "an extreme rationalism", though, it's not the usual. >>>>> >>>>> a principle of inverse >>>>> supplants, subsumes, and includes >>>>> a principle of non-contradiction/excluded-middle >>>> >>>> Modern Logic has always simply ignored that an >>>> expression may be semantically incoherent because >>>> logic has always ignored semantics and focused >>>> on syntax. >>> >>> Modern logic has >> >> always put semantics outside of the formal system >> in a separate model. > > And that way avoided semantic incoherence in formal systems. > It didn't really avoid it. The semantic incoherence was merely hidden. > > PTS does not do that. >>> Gödel proved that every consistent first order theory has a model. >>> That means that a consisten first order theory cannot be semantically >>> incoherent. > >> Like I just said. > > Therefore we can trust that in every theory that can express the > truths of the natural numbers there is a true sentence that cannot > be proven. > As I have been saying for many years and finally strict Proof Theoretic Semantics based on Dag Prawitz theory of Grounds agrees G is ungrounded in PA and is only true in meta-math. G was never ever true directly in PA. This goes all the way back to Wittgenstein (1937). https://www.liarparadox.org/Wittgenstein.pdf -- 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).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-22 15:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <111blfg$f9p$3@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #645596 |
[ Followup-To: set ] In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 6/22/2026 2:40 AM, Mikko wrote: > > Therefore we can trust that in every theory that can express the > > truths of the natural numbers there is a true sentence that cannot > > be proven. > As I have been saying for many years and finally > strict Proof Theoretic Semantics based on Dag Prawitz > theory of Grounds agrees G is ungrounded in PA > and is only true in meta-math. G was never ever > true directly in PA. G is true. I put it to you you're lying again. No reputable mathematician would risk his reputation by saying false things. If Dag Prawitz really did "agree" (with whom?) that Gödel's sentence G is not true in Peano Arithmetic, then produce a citation for this. And on the off chance you're not lying, who on Earth would want to use a deficient system like PTS that can't even prove standard mathematical results? [ .... ] > -- > Copyright 2026 Olcott -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-22 11:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <111bnhb$1ldfh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645600 |
On 6/22/2026 10:48 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > [ Followup-To: set ] > > In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 6/22/2026 2:40 AM, Mikko wrote: > >>> Therefore we can trust that in every theory that can express the >>> truths of the natural numbers there is a true sentence that cannot >>> be proven. > > >> As I have been saying for many years and finally >> strict Proof Theoretic Semantics based on Dag Prawitz >> theory of Grounds agrees G is ungrounded in PA >> and is only true in meta-math. G was never ever >> true directly in PA. > > G is true. > > I put it to you you're lying again. No reputable mathematician would > risk his reputation by saying false things. If Dag Prawitz really did > "agree" (with whom?) that Gödel's sentence G is not true in Peano > Arithmetic, then produce a citation for this. > He never gets to Gödel. He essentially says unprovable means untrue all the time for everything within his own Theory of Grounds of strict Proof Theoretic Semantics. Almost no PTS people even ever get to true, they all stop at semantic meaning. > And on the off chance you're not lying, who on Earth would want to use a > deficient system like PTS that can't even prove standard mathematical > results? > The Base-Extension Semantics (B-eS) sub-field of PTS lets you extend PA so that G is provable in PA. They also never talk about G or PA explicitly. > [ .... ] > >> -- >> Copyright 2026 Olcott > -- 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).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-22 18:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <111bvlr$2v4o$1@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #645601 |
[ Followup-To: set ] In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 6/22/2026 10:48 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > > In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 6/22/2026 2:40 AM, Mikko wrote: > >>> Therefore we can trust that in every theory that can express the > >>> truths of the natural numbers there is a true sentence that cannot > >>> be proven. > >> As I have been saying for many years and finally > >> strict Proof Theoretic Semantics based on Dag Prawitz > >> theory of Grounds agrees G is ungrounded in PA > >> and is only true in meta-math. G was never ever > >> true directly in PA. > > G is true. > > I put it to you you're lying again. No reputable mathematician would > > risk his reputation by saying false things. If Dag Prawitz really did > > "agree" (with whom?) that Gödel's sentence G is not true in Peano > > Arithmetic, then produce a citation for this. > He never gets to Gödel. He essentially says unprovable > means untrue all the time for everything within his > own Theory of Grounds of strict Proof Theoretic Semantics. You won't understand it, but that _is_ essentially Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem. It is a statement that any sufficiently powerful system can express true things it can't prove. So Dag Prawitz, had he been saying the things you falsely attributed to him, would certainly have "got" to Gödel, and would have understood full well what he was saying. I put it to you you have not understood that academic's work. > Almost no PTS people even ever get to true, they all stop at semantic > meaning. That's a tautology. One of those meanings which they will be dealing with is true. What's the point of a logical system that can't even characterise assertions as being true or false? > > And on the off chance you're not lying, who on Earth would want to use a > > deficient system like PTS that can't even prove standard mathematical > > results? > The Base-Extension Semantics (B-eS) sub-field of PTS > lets you extend PA so that G is provable in PA. > They also never talk about G or PA explicitly. Again, if PTS was like you say, why would anybody want to use it when it doesn't even prove standard results without some extension? I put it to you further, that PTS is quite capable of proving Gödel's theorems, without any special purpose extensions. Otherwise, what would be the point? > -- > Copyright 2026 Olcott -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-22 13:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <111c0nh$1oc4c$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645604 |
On 6/22/2026 1:42 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > [ Followup-To: set ] > > In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 6/22/2026 10:48 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 6/22/2026 2:40 AM, Mikko wrote: > >>>>> Therefore we can trust that in every theory that can express the >>>>> truths of the natural numbers there is a true sentence that cannot >>>>> be proven. > > >>>> As I have been saying for many years and finally >>>> strict Proof Theoretic Semantics based on Dag Prawitz >>>> theory of Grounds agrees G is ungrounded in PA >>>> and is only true in meta-math. G was never ever >>>> true directly in PA. > >>> G is true. > >>> I put it to you you're lying again. No reputable mathematician would >>> risk his reputation by saying false things. If Dag Prawitz really did >>> "agree" (with whom?) that Gödel's sentence G is not true in Peano >>> Arithmetic, then produce a citation for this. > > >> He never gets to Gödel. He essentially says unprovable >> means untrue all the time for everything within his >> own Theory of Grounds of strict Proof Theoretic Semantics. > > You won't understand it, but that _is_ essentially Gödel's Incompleteness > Theorem. It is a statement that any sufficiently powerful system can > express true things it can't prove. So Dag Prawitz, had he been saying > the things you falsely attributed to him, would certainly have "got" to > Gödel, and would have understood full well what he was saying. > You did not pay close enough attention to my exact words. If an expression is unprovable then this expression is untrue. Only for Dag Prawitz https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11245-011-9107-6 In the most of the rest of pure proof theoretic semantics an expression only acquires semantic meaning from its completed proof. They never get to true. When this is applied at the level of an individual formal system (almost never) then the expression never derives semantic meaning in that formal system. -- 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).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-22 19:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <111c3mc$6vi$1@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #645605 |
[ Followup-To: set ] In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 6/22/2026 1:42 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > > In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 6/22/2026 10:48 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > >>> G is true. > >>> I put it to you you're lying again. No reputable mathematician would > >>> risk his reputation by saying false things. If Dag Prawitz really did > >>> "agree" (with whom?) that Gödel's sentence G is not true in Peano > >>> Arithmetic, then produce a citation for this. > >> He never gets to Gödel. He essentially says unprovable > >> means untrue all the time for everything within his > >> own Theory of Grounds of strict Proof Theoretic Semantics. > > You won't understand it, but that _is_ essentially Gödel's Incompleteness > > Theorem. It is a statement that any sufficiently powerful system can > > express true things it can't prove. So Dag Prawitz, had he been saying > > the things you falsely attributed to him, would certainly have "got" to > > Gödel, and would have understood full well what he was saying. > You did not pay close enough attention to my exact words. I was right, you didn't understand it. Unfortunately for you I paid very close attention to them. I can tell when your words express the truth, and when they don't. As I keep telling you and you keep ignoring, any logical system bar the simplest can express truths it can't prove. That's a fundamental mathematical truth which you can't magic away with a magician's hat and a wand, like you keep trying to do. > If an expression is unprovable then this expression is untrue. > Only for Dag Prawitz > https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11245-011-9107-6 That article is behind a pay wall, and the abstract which is avaiblable doesn't touch on any supposed equivalence of true and provable. Many true expressions are unprovable. > In the most of the rest of pure proof theoretic semantics > an expression only acquires semantic meaning from its > completed proof. They never get to true. You don't understand the concept of true, so how could you tell? By "semantic meaning", a tautology, you presumably mean meaning. > When this is applied at the level of an individual formal > system (almost never) then the expression never derives > semantic meaning in that formal system. So what's the point of PTS? > -- > Copyright 2026 Olcott -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 15 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.math
csiph-web