Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G h as no meaning in PA
André G. Isaak <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | sci.logic,comp.theory,sci.math,comp.ai.philosophy |
|---|---|
| Organization | Christians and Atheists United Against Creeping Agnosticism |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 2026-06-29 18:37, olcott wrote: > On 6/29/2026 6:45 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >> On 2026-06-29 17:36, olcott wrote: >>> It does seem that they do agree that no proof >>> of G can possibly exist in PA does means that >>> G has no semantic meaning in PA. >> >> I've not seen anyone operating in PTS who says anything remotely like >> that. They do not agree with this; rather, you are projecting your own >> peculiar views onto their theory. >> >> André >> > > Because they beat around the bush about that using > terminology that varies across every author. It's not that they are beating around the bush; it's that they aren't actually saying what you want them to say. Face it, you really don't understand the PTS literature as it is above your head. André -- To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.