Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics

On 2026-06-30 15:45, olcott wrote:
> On 6/30/2026 4:18 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> 
> Yes. That is why I need to carefully find the exact
> text that backs me up. Because PTS has their own
> private author by author language it must be a
> work written for a general audience like this work.
> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/
> 
> 
>> Would you agree that there is a difference between a statement being 
>> false and a statement being meaningless?
>>
> 
> PTS is the way that meaning actually works. We can make a
> simpler analogy in that English words are meaningless until
> they are defined. The PTS connection of an expression in
> Q to its axioms Q is analogous to the connection of an
> English word to its definition. A proof merely looks to
> see if a definition exists and if it does not then the
> English Word / Expression of Q remains meaningless.
> 
> PTS counts a finite sequence of inference steps between
> an expression and a set of axioms as the definition of
> this expression. These are the two papers that establish
> this Definitional View.

None of the above answers my question:

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

That's a simple yes/no question. If you want to append an explanation 
that's fine, but please start your answer with either yes or no.

André

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