Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics

On 6/30/2026 6:04 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/30/2026 4:56 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> 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?
>>
> 
> I don't answer dumb questions.

Translation:

"I don't answer questions that can prove me wrong"

> That is why I am not responding to any posts
> besides yours. dbush has become a troll again.


Reminding people that you admitted that disjunction intruduction is 
truth-preserving by your repeated dishonest dodging of how P can be true 
and P ∨ Q can be false is not trolling.