Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics

On 6/24/2026 4:52 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 23/06/2026 17:47, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/23/2026 12:55 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 22/06/2026 15:09, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/22/2026 1:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 22/06/2026 02:58, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/21/2026 5:17 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 20/06/2026 17:41, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2026 2:50 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 19/06/2026 15:46, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Making sure to leave out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and
>>>>>>>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and reject
>>>>>>>>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics)
>>>>>>>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to
>>>>>>>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> At different times you have expressed different opinions, which
>>>>>>>>> sometimes have been incompatible. But you have never clearly
>>>>>>>>> retracted your earlier opitions that conflict with your present
>>>>>>>>> ones.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All of the ideas that I have ever had about these things
>>>>>>>> are now under the Proof Theoretic Semantics category.
>>>>>>>> These ideas have evolved over time, yet their essence
>>>>>>>> has remained utterly unchanged since 1997.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's nearly thirty years, and you still havn't written a 
>>>>>>> publishable
>>>>>>> (or nearly publishable) article about them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have 50 pre prints articles. Because not one single> human being 
>>>>>> on the face of the Earth could understand
>>>>>> me I could not publish.
>>>>>
>>>>> As far as I have seen, all interesting content in those articles
>>>>> that have any is or depends on claims that should be proven but
>>>>> aren't.
>>>>
>>>> They are proven in Proof Theoretic Semantics
>>>
>>> An aricle is not publishable unless it either contains the proof or
>>> has a pointer to an olready published proof.
>>
>> Only now after 28 years am I acquiring the lingua Franca
>> terms-of-the-art of proof theoretic semantics such that
>> I can anchor my ideas in the foundational work of the
>> most respected authors in the field.
>>
>> My issue with you guys is that you only spend 1%
>> of your concentration understanding me and the other
>> 99% trying to artificially contrive some baseless
>> rebuttal.
> 
> THat "baseless" is false but otherwise, what is wrong is more
> important than what is right. Of one ignores what is right one
> mai fail to achieve what one could, but if one believs what is
> wrong one may achieve a disaseter.
> 

Proof-theoretic semantics is an alternative to truth-condition semantics.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/

So far no one has even acknowledged that PTS is an alternative
to truth-conditional semantics. Several people have seemed
to same that no alternative can possibly exist.
-- 
Copyright 2026 Olcott

My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge.
The complete structure of this system is now defined.

The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is
comprised of two types of relations between finite strings:
(a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true.

My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by
expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal
language such as CycL of the Cyc project.

(b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically
entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).