On 2/7/2026 10:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/7/26 10:10 AM, olcott wrote:
On 2/7/2026 8:46 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/7/26 9:22 AM, olcott wrote:
On 2/7/2026 7:50 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/7/26 8:10 AM, olcott wrote:
On 2/7/2026 4:25 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 06/02/2026 17:30, olcott wrote:
On 2/6/2026 3:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 05/02/2026 18:55, olcott wrote:
Changing the foundational basis to Proof Theoretic Semantics >>>>>>>>>>> Tarski Undefinability is overcomeA definition in terms of an undefined symbol does not really >>>>>>>>>> define.
x ∈ Provable ⇔ x ∈ True // proof theoretic semantics >>>>>>>>>>
It is an axiom: ∀x (Provable(x) ⇒ True(x))
There are theories where every sentence is provable but it is not >>>>>>>> possiible to interprete any theory so that every sentence is true. >>>>>>>>
Proof Theoretic Semantics enables
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
to be reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge.
No it doesn't, but then you never understood what truth is, or
really what knowledge is.
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
expressions of language are defined in terms of other
expressions of language thus truth is computed on the
basis of relations between finite strings.
In other words, you admit your definition is self-referenetial, and
by your own claims, not a basis for logic.
It is an acyclic directed graph.
So, what part of language has meaning without reference to anything else?
You just said that your expressions are defined in terms of other
expressions. Which ones are definable without reference to anything else?
It is all a huge semantic tautology, even the
stipulated "atomic facts" specify relations
between finite strings.
But, by the actual meaning of the words, Godel's G is something that
can be expressed in the language of PA, and has meaning, but is a
statement that must be true in PA, but can not be proven in PA.
If your "definition" doesn't do that, you need to show where it
makes it not so.
You don't understand what Languages is as you think words are
pliable and can be changed.
You are just showing you are just a natural liar.
On 2/7/26 11:46 AM, olcott wrote:
On 2/7/2026 10:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/7/26 10:10 AM, olcott wrote:
On 2/7/2026 8:46 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/7/26 9:22 AM, olcott wrote:
On 2/7/2026 7:50 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/7/26 8:10 AM, olcott wrote:
On 2/7/2026 4:25 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 06/02/2026 17:30, olcott wrote:
On 2/6/2026 3:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 05/02/2026 18:55, olcott wrote:
Changing the foundational basis to Proof Theoretic Semantics >>>>>>>>>>>> Tarski Undefinability is overcomeA definition in terms of an undefined symbol does not really >>>>>>>>>>> define.
x ∈ Provable ⇔ x ∈ True // proof theoretic semantics >>>>>>>>>>>
It is an axiom: ∀x (Provable(x) ⇒ True(x))
There are theories where every sentence is provable but it is not >>>>>>>>> possiible to interprete any theory so that every sentence is true. >>>>>>>>>
Proof Theoretic Semantics enables
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
to be reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge.
No it doesn't, but then you never understood what truth is, or
really what knowledge is.
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
expressions of language are defined in terms of other
expressions of language thus truth is computed on the
basis of relations between finite strings.
In other words, you admit your definition is self-referenetial, and >>>>> by your own claims, not a basis for logic.
It is an acyclic directed graph.
So, what part of language has meaning without reference to anything
else?
You just said that your expressions are defined in terms of other
expressions. Which ones are definable without reference to anything
else?
It is all a huge semantic tautology, even the
stipulated "atomic facts" specify relations
between finite strings.
In other words, NO, you can't explain what you mean and need to keep changing it because you don't understand what you are talking about.
A system that is one bing semantic tautology means it is basically
worthless as everything is just redundently true
When I refer to a formal system I am referring to
Russell's atomic facts written down and placed in
a simple Type Hierarchy.
You keep on thinking it is just a form of Philosophy, which it really
isn't.
There are theories where every sentence is provable but it is not
possiible to interprete any theory so that every sentence is true.
You don't understand what Languages is as you think words are pliable
and can be changed.
On 2/7/2026 2:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/7/26 11:46 AM, olcott wrote:
On 2/7/2026 10:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/7/26 10:10 AM, olcott wrote:
On 2/7/2026 8:46 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/7/26 9:22 AM, olcott wrote:
On 2/7/2026 7:50 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/7/26 8:10 AM, olcott wrote:
On 2/7/2026 4:25 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 06/02/2026 17:30, olcott wrote:
On 2/6/2026 3:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 05/02/2026 18:55, olcott wrote:
Changing the foundational basis to Proof Theoretic Semantics >>>>>>>>>>>>> Tarski Undefinability is overcomeA definition in terms of an undefined symbol does not really >>>>>>>>>>>> define.
x ∈ Provable ⇔ x ∈ True // proof theoretic semantics >>>>>>>>>>>>
It is an axiom: ∀x (Provable(x) ⇒ True(x))
There are theories where every sentence is provable but it is not >>>>>>>>>> possiible to interprete any theory so that every sentence is >>>>>>>>>> true.
Proof Theoretic Semantics enables
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
to be reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge.
No it doesn't, but then you never understood what truth is, or >>>>>>>> really what knowledge is.
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
expressions of language are defined in terms of other
expressions of language thus truth is computed on the
basis of relations between finite strings.
In other words, you admit your definition is self-referenetial,
and by your own claims, not a basis for logic.
It is an acyclic directed graph.
So, what part of language has meaning without reference to anything
else?
You just said that your expressions are defined in terms of other
expressions. Which ones are definable without reference to anything
else?
It is all a huge semantic tautology, even the
stipulated "atomic facts" specify relations
between finite strings.
In other words, NO, you can't explain what you mean and need to keep
changing it because you don't understand what you are talking about.
A system that is one bing semantic tautology means it is basically
worthless as everything is just redundently true
When we understand that every expression that is "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" derives all of its meaning by its
relation to other expressions of language then we can see that the expressions PTS rejects really are semantically meaningless. We can
anchor this even more by stipulating that these relations are semantic entailment specified syntactically.
On 07/02/2026 00:10, olcott wrote:
When I refer to a formal system I am referring to
Russell's atomic facts written down and placed in
a simple Type Hierarchy.
Is that, in effect, the conventional meaning of "formal system"? It is
not normally expressed so, see Curry and Feys.
On 2/7/26 8:10 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/7/2026 2:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/7/26 11:46 AM, olcott wrote:
On 2/7/2026 10:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/7/26 10:10 AM, olcott wrote:
On 2/7/2026 8:46 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/7/26 9:22 AM, olcott wrote:
On 2/7/2026 7:50 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/7/26 8:10 AM, olcott wrote:
On 2/7/2026 4:25 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 06/02/2026 17:30, olcott wrote:
On 2/6/2026 3:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 05/02/2026 18:55, olcott wrote:
Changing the foundational basis to Proof Theoretic Semantics >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tarski Undefinability is overcomeA definition in terms of an undefined symbol does not >>>>>>>>>>>>> really define.
x ∈ Provable ⇔ x ∈ True // proof theoretic semantics >>>>>>>>>>>>>
It is an axiom: ∀x (Provable(x) ⇒ True(x))
There are theories where every sentence is provable but it is >>>>>>>>>>> not
possiible to interprete any theory so that every sentence is >>>>>>>>>>> true.
Proof Theoretic Semantics enables
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
to be reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge. >>>>>>>>>>
No it doesn't, but then you never understood what truth is, or >>>>>>>>> really what knowledge is.
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
expressions of language are defined in terms of other
expressions of language thus truth is computed on the
basis of relations between finite strings.
In other words, you admit your definition is self-referenetial, >>>>>>> and by your own claims, not a basis for logic.
It is an acyclic directed graph.
So, what part of language has meaning without reference to anything >>>>> else?
You just said that your expressions are defined in terms of other
expressions. Which ones are definable without reference to anything >>>>> else?
It is all a huge semantic tautology, even the
stipulated "atomic facts" specify relations
between finite strings.
In other words, NO, you can't explain what you mean and need to keep
changing it because you don't understand what you are talking about.
A system that is one bing semantic tautology means it is basically
worthless as everything is just redundently true
When we understand that every expression that is "true on the basis of
meaning expressed in language" derives all of its meaning by its
relation to other expressions of language then we can see that the
expressions PTS rejects really are semantically meaningless. We can
anchor this even more by stipulating that these relations are semantic
entailment specified syntactically.
But the problem is too many true statements are NOT "True on the basis
of meaning expressed in language", like the Pythagorean Theorem.
Thus, your system based on just things that are, is woefully underpowered.
Until you can show how you can show the Pythogorean Theorem fits into
you system, you are just showing that you are just an idiotic liar.
On 07/02/2026 00:23, Richard Damon wrote:
You keep on thinking it is just a form of Philosophy, which it really isn't.
It's at least a form of a subset of philosophy because it's semantical.
The message body is Copyright (C) 2026 Tristan Wibberley exceptcitations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may,
On 2/7/2026 8:47 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
On 07/02/2026 00:10, olcott wrote:
When I refer to a formal system I am referring to
Russell's atomic facts written down and placed in
a simple Type Hierarchy.
Is that, in effect, the conventional meaning of "formal system"? It is
not normally expressed so, see Curry and Feys.
It is the axiomatic foundation of this:
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge.
On 2/7/2026 9:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/7/26 8:10 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/7/2026 2:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/7/26 11:46 AM, olcott wrote:
On 2/7/2026 10:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/7/26 10:10 AM, olcott wrote:
On 2/7/2026 8:46 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/7/26 9:22 AM, olcott wrote:
On 2/7/2026 7:50 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/7/26 8:10 AM, olcott wrote:
On 2/7/2026 4:25 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 06/02/2026 17:30, olcott wrote:
On 2/6/2026 3:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 05/02/2026 18:55, olcott wrote:
Changing the foundational basis to Proof Theoretic Semantics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tarski Undefinability is overcomeA definition in terms of an undefined symbol does not >>>>>>>>>>>>>> really define.
x ∈ Provable ⇔ x ∈ True // proof theoretic semantics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It is an axiom: ∀x (Provable(x) ⇒ True(x))
There are theories where every sentence is provable but it >>>>>>>>>>>> is not
possiible to interprete any theory so that every sentence is >>>>>>>>>>>> true.
Proof Theoretic Semantics enables
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
to be reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge. >>>>>>>>>>>
No it doesn't, but then you never understood what truth is, or >>>>>>>>>> really what knowledge is.
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
expressions of language are defined in terms of other
expressions of language thus truth is computed on the
basis of relations between finite strings.
In other words, you admit your definition is self-referenetial, >>>>>>>> and by your own claims, not a basis for logic.
It is an acyclic directed graph.
So, what part of language has meaning without reference to
anything else?
You just said that your expressions are defined in terms of other >>>>>> expressions. Which ones are definable without reference to
anything else?
It is all a huge semantic tautology, even the
stipulated "atomic facts" specify relations
between finite strings.
In other words, NO, you can't explain what you mean and need to keep
changing it because you don't understand what you are talking about.
A system that is one bing semantic tautology means it is basically
worthless as everything is just redundently true
When we understand that every expression that is "true on the basis
of meaning expressed in language" derives all of its meaning by its
relation to other expressions of language then we can see that the
expressions PTS rejects really are semantically meaningless. We can
anchor this even more by stipulating that these relations are
semantic entailment specified syntactically.
But the problem is too many true statements are NOT "True on the basis
of meaning expressed in language", like the Pythagorean Theorem.
Those ate atomic facts in the system, stipulated to be true.
Russell's atomic facts are complete.
Thus, your system based on just things that are, is woefully
underpowered.
The complete body of all knowledge that can be written
down is not underpowered.
Until you can show how you can show the Pythogorean Theorem fits into
you system, you are just showing that you are just an idiotic liar.
You you are going to be disrespectful I will stop talking to you.
On 2/7/26 11:59 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/7/2026 8:47 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
On 07/02/2026 00:10, olcott wrote:
When I refer to a formal system I am referring to
Russell's atomic facts written down and placed in
a simple Type Hierarchy.
Is that, in effect, the conventional meaning of "formal system"? It is
not normally expressed so, see Curry and Feys.
It is the axiomatic foundation of this:
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge.
No, because that doesn't exist.
The problem is "True" can't be computable in a system that handles all knowledge, as you have been shown.
Your problem is you just don't understand what you are talking about, as truth is a concept you, as a pathological liar, can't understand.
On 2/9/2026 6:51 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/7/26 11:59 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/7/2026 8:47 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
On 07/02/2026 00:10, olcott wrote:
When I refer to a formal system I am referring to
Russell's atomic facts written down and placed in
a simple Type Hierarchy.
Is that, in effect, the conventional meaning of "formal system"? It is >>>> not normally expressed so, see Curry and Feys.
It is the axiomatic foundation of this:
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge.
No, because that doesn't exist.
The problem is "True" can't be computable in a system that handles all
knowledge, as you have been shown.
Your problem is you just don't understand what you are talking about,
as truth is a concept you, as a pathological liar, can't understand.
I warned you about disrespect
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 1,099 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 492377:30:13 |
| Calls: | 14,106 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 187,124 |
| D/L today: |
2,219 files (1,005M bytes) |
| Messages: | 2,496,204 |