From Newsgroup: comp.theory

On 2026-02-10 21:59, olcott wrote:

We completely replace the foundation of truth conditional
semantics with proof theoretic semantics. Then expressions
are "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
only to the extent that all their meaning comes from
inferential relations to other expressions of that language.
This is a purely linguistic PTS notion of truth with no
connections outside the inferential system.

Well-founded proof-theoretic semantics reject expressions
lacking a "well-founded justification tree" as meaningless.
∀x (~Provable(T, x) ⇔ Meaningless(T, x))

Proof-theoretic semantics makes no such claim. That's your claim and you should stop attributing it to others.

André
--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
service.

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.theory

On 2/11/2026 2:43 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:

On 2026-02-10 21:59, olcott wrote:

We completely replace the foundation of truth conditional
semantics with proof theoretic semantics. Then expressions
are "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
only to the extent that all their meaning comes from
inferential relations to other expressions of that language.
This is a purely linguistic PTS notion of truth with no
connections outside the inferential system.

Well-founded proof-theoretic semantics reject expressions
lacking a "well-founded justification tree" as meaningless.
∀x (~Provable(T, x) ⇔ Meaningless(T, x))

Proof-theoretic semantics makes no such claim. That's your claim and you should stop attributing it to others.

André

That is a correct paraphrase of the claims that it
always does make. Try and show otherwise.

Meaning of expressions only comes from inferential
relations to other expressions. The historical peer
reviewed papers boiled down to their bare essence.
They say the same thing in lots of paragraphs.

This is the bottom line basis across authors
Meaning as Introduction/Elimination Rules
Gerhard Gentzen (1934/35), "Investigations into Logical Deduction"


Written by one of the best experts in the field https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/
--
Copyright 2026 Olcott<br><br>

My 28 year goal has been to make <br>
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"<br>
reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge.<br><br>

This required establishing a new foundation<br>
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.theory

On 2026-02-11 14:27, olcott wrote:

On 2/11/2026 2:43 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:

On 2026-02-10 21:59, olcott wrote:

We completely replace the foundation of truth conditional
semantics with proof theoretic semantics. Then expressions
are "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
only to the extent that all their meaning comes from
inferential relations to other expressions of that language.
This is a purely linguistic PTS notion of truth with no
connections outside the inferential system.

Well-founded proof-theoretic semantics reject expressions
lacking a "well-founded justification tree" as meaningless.
∀x (~Provable(T, x) ⇔ Meaningless(T, x))

Proof-theoretic semantics makes no such claim. That's your claim and
you should stop attributing it to others.

André

That is a correct paraphrase of the claims that it
always does make. Try and show otherwise.

Not even remotely.

And the burden of proof is on you to justify your claims. Please quote
someone working on PTS who claims that ∀x (~Provable(T, x) ⇔ Meaningless(T, x))

André
--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
service.

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.theory

On 2/11/2026 5:30 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:

On 2026-02-11 14:27, olcott wrote:

On 2/11/2026 2:43 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:

On 2026-02-10 21:59, olcott wrote:

We completely replace the foundation of truth conditional
semantics with proof theoretic semantics. Then expressions
are "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
only to the extent that all their meaning comes from
inferential relations to other expressions of that language.
This is a purely linguistic PTS notion of truth with no
connections outside the inferential system.

Well-founded proof-theoretic semantics reject expressions
lacking a "well-founded justification tree" as meaningless.
∀x (~Provable(T, x) ⇔ Meaningless(T, x))

Proof-theoretic semantics makes no such claim. That's your claim and
you should stop attributing it to others.

André

That is a correct paraphrase of the claims that it
always does make. Try and show otherwise.

Not even remotely.

And the burden of proof is on you to justify your claims. Please quote someone working on PTS who claims that ∀x (~Provable(T, x) ⇔ Meaningless(T, x))

André

That is fair.

1.2 Inferentialism, intuitionism, anti-realism
Proof-theoretic semantics is inherently inferential,
as it is inferential activity which manifests itself
in proofs. It thus belongs to inferentialism (a term
coined by Brandom, see his 1994; 2000) according to
which inferences and the rules of inference establish
the meaning of expressions

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/#InfeIntuAntiReal


The guy that wrote the article is a major player in the field
--
Copyright 2026 Olcott<br><br>

My 28 year goal has been to make <br>
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"<br>
reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge.<br><br>

This required establishing a new foundation<br>
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.theory

On 2026-02-11 16:41, olcott wrote:

On 2/11/2026 5:30 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:

On 2026-02-11 14:27, olcott wrote:

On 2/11/2026 2:43 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:

On 2026-02-10 21:59, olcott wrote:

We completely replace the foundation of truth conditional
semantics with proof theoretic semantics. Then expressions
are "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
only to the extent that all their meaning comes from
inferential relations to other expressions of that language.
This is a purely linguistic PTS notion of truth with no
connections outside the inferential system.

Well-founded proof-theoretic semantics reject expressions
lacking a "well-founded justification tree" as meaningless.
∀x (~Provable(T, x) ⇔ Meaningless(T, x))

Proof-theoretic semantics makes no such claim. That's your claim and
you should stop attributing it to others.

André

That is a correct paraphrase of the claims that it
always does make. Try and show otherwise.

Not even remotely.

And the burden of proof is on you to justify your claims. Please quote
someone working on PTS who claims that ∀x (~Provable(T, x) ⇔
Meaningless(T, x))

André

That is fair.

1.2 Inferentialism, intuitionism, anti-realism
Proof-theoretic semantics is inherently inferential,
as it is inferential activity which manifests itself
in proofs. It thus belongs to inferentialism (a term
coined by Brandom, see his 1994; 2000) according to
which inferences and the rules of inference establish
the meaning of expressions

That doesn't support your position, either the quote above or the entire section in which it is embedded. You're imagining things which simply
aren't there.

André
--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
service.

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.theory

On 2/11/2026 6:17 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:

On 2026-02-11 16:41, olcott wrote:

On 2/11/2026 5:30 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:

On 2026-02-11 14:27, olcott wrote:

On 2/11/2026 2:43 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:

On 2026-02-10 21:59, olcott wrote:

We completely replace the foundation of truth conditional
semantics with proof theoretic semantics. Then expressions
are "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
only to the extent that all their meaning comes from
inferential relations to other expressions of that language.
This is a purely linguistic PTS notion of truth with no
connections outside the inferential system.

Well-founded proof-theoretic semantics reject expressions
lacking a "well-founded justification tree" as meaningless.
∀x (~Provable(T, x) ⇔ Meaningless(T, x))

Proof-theoretic semantics makes no such claim. That's your claim
and you should stop attributing it to others.

André

That is a correct paraphrase of the claims that it
always does make. Try and show otherwise.

Not even remotely.

And the burden of proof is on you to justify your claims. Please
quote someone working on PTS who claims that ∀x (~Provable(T, x) ⇔
Meaningless(T, x))

André

That is fair.

1.2 Inferentialism, intuitionism, anti-realism
Proof-theoretic semantics is inherently inferential,
as it is inferential activity which manifests itself
in proofs. It thus belongs to inferentialism (a term
coined by Brandom, see his 1994; 2000) according to
which inferences and the rules of inference establish
the meaning of expressions

That doesn't support your position, either the quote above or the entire section in which it is embedded. You're imagining things which simply
aren't there.

André

When we understand that linguistic truth (just like
an ordinary dictionary) expressions of language only
get their semantic meaning from other expressions of
language then we directly understand entirely based on
the meaning of words that when no such connection exists
then no semantic meaning is derived.

Proof Theoretic Semantics is doing this same thing
whether you ever understand it or not.

As I have been saying for many years before I ever
heard the term Proof Theoretic Semantics expressions
of language derive all of their semantic meaning
from semantic connections to other expressions of
language. Also as I have been saying for many years
these connections can be formalized syntactically
in several different ways
--
Copyright 2026 Olcott<br><br>

My 28 year goal has been to make <br>
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"<br>
reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge.<br><br>

This required establishing a new foundation<br>
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.theory

On 11/02/2026 23:30, André G. Isaak wrote:

Please quote someone working on PTS who claims that ∀x (~Provable(T, x)
⇔ Meaningless(T, x))

Depends on the meaning of "Provable" and of "Meaningless". We don't even
know what objects the system has for quantification, he says it's a
syntactical system but I'm starting to think that only has meaning as a specific sort of abstract formal system (semantical, technically).
--
Tristan Wibberley

The message body is Copyright (C) 2026 Tristan Wibberley except
citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may,
of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it
verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to
promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation
of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general
superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train
any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that
will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.theory

On 2/12/2026 1:10 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:

On 11/02/2026 23:30, André G. Isaak wrote:

Please quote someone working on PTS who claims that ∀x (~Provable(T, x)
⇔ Meaningless(T, x))

Depends on the meaning of "Provable" and of "Meaningless". We don't even
know what objects the system has for quantification, he says it's a syntactical system but I'm starting to think that only has meaning as a specific sort of abstract formal system (semantical, technically).

We completely replace the foundation of Truth Conditional
Semantics with Proof Theoretic Semantics (PTS). Then
expressions are "true on the basis of meaning expressed
in language" only to the extent that all their meaning
comes from inferential relations to other expressions of
that language. This is the purely linguistic PTS notion
of truth having no connections outside the inferential system.

Expressions of language of formal system L only have
PTS meaning in L the exact same way that a word only
has meaning in a dictionary when that word is in that
dictionary.
--
Copyright 2026 Olcott<br><br>

My 28 year goal has been to make <br>
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"<br>
reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge.<br><br>

This required establishing a new foundation<br>
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2