Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics

Liste des GroupesRevenir à c theory 
Sujet : Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : sci.logic comp.theory sci.math comp.ai.philosophy
Date : 03. Jul 2026, 19:38:44
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <1128vjk$3jrr5$2@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 7/3/2026 1:21 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-03 12:12, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2026 12:17 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-03 10:48, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2026 9:45 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-02 23:02, olcott wrote:
On 7/1/2026 9:03 PM, olcott wrote:
Q cannot do the ∀x without an infinite sequence of steps.
>
So your phrasing is good: Q would need something like an infinite sequence of steps (or a single principle that summarizes them) to get the ∀x. Since formal proofs must be finite, and Q lacks the tool (induction) that would allow a finite proof of the infinite claim, the universal statement remains unprovable.
>
I'm not sure why you are responding to yourself nor who 'your phrasing' refers to since you don't quote anyone. But, assuming we're still talking about ∀ x, S(x) ≠ x in Q, your reasoning is simply off.
>
You *can* prove universally quantified claims in Q, just not that particular claim.
>
>
What is the reason that (∀x, S(x) ≠ x) cannot be proved in Q?
>
Because it isn't true in all models of Q,
Model theory has been expressly off-topic for
many weeks in every thread. Whenever you ignore
this the rest of your reply will be ignored.
 The rest of my post which you snipped and (presumably) ignored explained *why* you are wrong about this. PTS does not reject models or model theory. It simply doesn't rely on model-theoretic semantics. Q *requires* a model.
 André
 
It replaces Model theory With PTS.
That you do not understand this is your mistake.
"Is x true" is replaced with something like "Is x provable".
--
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).

Date Sujet#  Auteur
20 Apr 26 * Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA286olcott
21 Apr 26 +* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA239Mikko
21 Apr 26 i`* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA238olcott
22 Apr 26 i `* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA237Mikko
22 Apr 26 i  `* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA236olcott
22 Apr 26 i   +* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA5Mikko
22 Apr 26 i   i`* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA4olcott
23 Apr 26 i   i `* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA3Mikko
23 Apr 26 i   i  `* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA2olcott
24 Apr 26 i   i   `- Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA1Mikko
23 Apr 26 i   `* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA230André G. Isaak
23 Apr 26 i    +* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA4olcott
24 Apr 26 i    i`* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA3André G. Isaak
25 Apr 26 i    i `* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA2Chris M. Thomasson
25 Apr 26 i    i  `- Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA1Chris M. Thomasson
23 Apr 26 i    +* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA2Ross Finlayson
23 Apr 26 i    i`- Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA1Ross Finlayson
20 Jun 26 i    `* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA223Tristan Wibberley
20 Jun 26 i     `* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA222olcott
27 Jun 26 i      `* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA221Tristan Wibberley
27 Jun 26 i       +- Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA1Ross Finlayson
27 Jun 26 i       `* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA219polcott
28 Jun 26 i        +* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA216Mikko
29 Jun 26 i        i`* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA215olcott
29 Jun07:14 i        i `* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA214Mikko
29 Jun14:29 i        i  `* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA213olcott
29 Jun18:05 i        i   +* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA196André G. Isaak
29 Jun19:16 i        i   i`* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA195olcott
29 Jun19:29 i        i   i `* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA194André G. Isaak
29 Jun20:08 i        i   i  `* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA193olcott
29 Jun20:33 i        i   i   `* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA192André G. Isaak
29 Jun20:47 i        i   i    `* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA191olcott
29 Jun21:02 i        i   i     `* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA190André G. Isaak
29 Jun21:06 i        i   i      `* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA189olcott
29 Jun21:58 i        i   i       `* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA188André G. Isaak
29 Jun22:10 i        i   i        `* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA187olcott
29 Jun22:18 i        i   i         `* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA186André G. Isaak
29 Jun22:39 i        i   i          `* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA185olcott
29 Jun23:25 i        i   i           `* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA184André G. Isaak
29 Jun23:38 i        i   i            `* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA183olcott
30 Jun00:03 i        i   i             `* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA182André G. Isaak
30 Jun00:36 i        i   i              `* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA181olcott
30 Jun00:45 i        i   i               `* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA180André G. Isaak
30 Jun01:37 i        i   i                `* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA179olcott
30 Jun02:01 i        i   i                 `* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA178André G. Isaak
30 Jun02:19 i        i   i                  `* The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics177olcott
30 Jun02:54 i        i   i                   `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics176André G. Isaak
30 Jun03:17 i        i   i                    +* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics174olcott
30 Jun03:31 i        i   i                    i`* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics173André G. Isaak
30 Jun03:42 i        i   i                    i `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics172olcott
30 Jun03:49 i        i   i                    i  `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics171André G. Isaak
30 Jun04:06 i        i   i                    i   `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics170olcott
30 Jun22:18 i        i   i                    i    `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics169André G. Isaak
30 Jun22:45 i        i   i                    i     +* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics162olcott
30 Jun22:56 i        i   i                    i     i`* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics161André G. Isaak
30 Jun23:04 i        i   i                    i     i `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics160olcott
1 Jul03:34 i        i   i                    i     i  `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics159dbush
1 Jul03:57 i        i   i                    i     i   `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics158olcott
1 Jul04:02 i        i   i                    i     i    +* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics155dbush
1 Jul04:10 i        i   i                    i     i    i`* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics154olcott
1 Jul04:17 i        i   i                    i     i    i +* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics151dbush
1 Jul04:49 i        i   i                    i     i    i i`* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics150olcott
1 Jul05:01 i        i   i                    i     i    i i `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics149dbush
1 Jul05:20 i        i   i                    i     i    i i  `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics148olcott
1 Jul12:55 i        i   i                    i     i    i i   `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics147dbush
1 Jul15:40 i        i   i                    i     i    i i    `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics146olcott
1 Jul18:33 i        i   i                    i     i    i i     `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics145dbush
1 Jul19:01 i        i   i                    i     i    i i      `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics144olcott
1 Jul19:10 i        i   i                    i     i    i i       +* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics34André G. Isaak
1 Jul19:20 i        i   i                    i     i    i i       i`* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics33olcott
1 Jul19:34 i        i   i                    i     i    i i       i +* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics4dbush
1 Jul19:53 i        i   i                    i     i    i i       i i`* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics3olcott
1 Jul19:57 i        i   i                    i     i    i i       i i `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics2dbush
1 Jul20:06 i        i   i                    i     i    i i       i i  `- Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics1olcott
1 Jul19:40 i        i   i                    i     i    i i       i `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics28André G. Isaak
1 Jul19:50 i        i   i                    i     i    i i       i  `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics27olcott
1 Jul20:23 i        i   i                    i     i    i i       i   `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics26André G. Isaak
1 Jul20:47 i        i   i                    i     i    i i       i    `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics25olcott
1 Jul21:11 i        i   i                    i     i    i i       i     `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics24André G. Isaak
1 Jul21:28 i        i   i                    i     i    i i       i      `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics23olcott
1 Jul21:50 i        i   i                    i     i    i i       i       `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics22André G. Isaak
1 Jul21:52 i        i   i                    i     i    i i       i        `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics21olcott
1 Jul22:10 i        i   i                    i     i    i i       i         `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics20André G. Isaak
1 Jul23:43 i        i   i                    i     i    i i       i          `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics19olcott
2 Jul00:09 i        i   i                    i     i    i i       i           `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics18André G. Isaak
2 Jul01:05 i        i   i                    i     i    i i       i            `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics17olcott
2 Jul01:39 i        i   i                    i     i    i i       i             `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics16André G. Isaak
2 Jul02:01 i        i   i                    i     i    i i       i              `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics15olcott
2 Jul02:23 i        i   i                    i     i    i i       i               `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics14André G. Isaak
2 Jul03:03 i        i   i                    i     i    i i       i                `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics13olcott
3 Jul06:02 i        i   i                    i     i    i i       i                 `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics12olcott
3 Jul15:45 i        i   i                    i     i    i i       i                  `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics11André G. Isaak
3 Jul17:48 i        i   i                    i     i    i i       i                   `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics10olcott
3 Jul18:17 i        i   i                    i     i    i i       i                    `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics9André G. Isaak
3 Jul19:12 i        i   i                    i     i    i i       i                     `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics8olcott
3 Jul19:21 i        i   i                    i     i    i i       i                      `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics7André G. Isaak
3 Jul19:38 i        i   i                    i     i    i i       i                       `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics6olcott
3 Jul19:46 i        i   i                    i     i    i i       i                        +* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics4André G. Isaak
3 Jul21:43 i        i   i                    i     i    i i       i                        i`* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics3olcott
3 Jul22:22 i        i   i                    i     i    i i       i                        i `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics2André G. Isaak
4 Jul02:11 i        i   i                    i     i    i i       i                        i  `- Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics1olcott
4 Jul09:49 i        i   i                    i     i    i i       i                        `- Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics1Mikko
1 Jul19:15 i        i   i                    i     i    i i       `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics109dbush
1 Jul04:31 i        i   i                    i     i    i `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics2André G. Isaak
1 Jul04:04 i        i   i                    i     i    `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics2dbush
30 Jun22:56 i        i   i                    i     `* Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics6olcott
30 Jun03:26 i        i   i                    `- Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics1olcott
30 Jun09:18 i        i   `* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA16Mikko
29 Jun10:50 i        `* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA2Tristan Wibberley
26 Apr 26 +* Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA45olcott
30 Jun06:54 `- Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G has no meaning in PA1Tristan Wibberley

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal