On 20/06/2026 18:32, olcott wrote:
>A proof theoretic expression is known to be true when>
it is fully grounded in its atomic base. Only two
PTS semantics researchers deal with true Dag Prawitz
is the one that began this. PTS previously only dealt
with semantic meaning and never got around to true(L,x).
>
That's surprising, disregard for axioms?
>
>
>It's sadly common these days with "non-classical logics"
or "synthetic pluralism", the, "ignoring definition"
or where that's defensible inside an axiomatics,
"having contradictory definition".
Some words have two definitions - a few have it that
their definitions are opposites, like "entropy",
Aristotle's and Leibnitz'. Mostly though if they're
not the same they have different contexts altogether,
so today's "pluralistic" accounts are almost always
contradictory each other, and "non-classical logics"
are quite often having contradictions in them.
(Here "classical logic" is a modal, temporal, relevance
logic, with axiomless natural deduction, that most people
find as most usual the common sense logically about logic.)
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.