Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics

On 2026-06-29 21:06, olcott wrote:
> On 6/29/2026 9:49 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2026-06-29 20:42, olcott wrote:

>>> Those are specific concrete examples of how
>>> Proof Theoretic Semantics rejects expressions
>>> as Proof Theoretic Semantically incoherent.
>>
>> No, they are not. No author writing in the framework of 
>> proof-theoretic semantics has ever offered those examples or 
>> comparable examples or made any claims about 'rejecting expressions as 
>> proof theoretic semantically incoherent'. And there's nothing 
>> incoherent about the statement 'no number is equal to its successor' 
>> which is the example under discussion.
>>
>> André
>>
> 
> None-the-less what I have said remains completely true.
> What I have spent 28 years reverse-engineering from first
> principles is exactly that. That no one applied PTS
> exactly that way before does not mean that it is not
> exactly correct PTS.

Unfortunately, your say so carries very little weight.

Would you agree that there is a difference between a statement being 
false and a statement being meaningless?

> The biggest mistake that humanity makes that is killing
> the whole planet is treating unbelievable as exactly
> one-and-the-same-thing as untrue.

I have no idea what you're getting at here.

André

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