Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics
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 2026-07-01 12:15, dbush wrote: > On 7/1/2026 2:01 PM, olcott wrote: >> The same thing as: "cats are animals" expressed in >> English has no English meaning in Chinese. > > I didn't ask for an example. I asked for a definition of what it mean > for the truth value of a statement to not exist in a formal system. I'm actually not convinced that Olcott understands what a definition is. I've frequently asked him for definitions and he invariably responds with an example or an analogy (assuming he responds at all). He doesn't get that examples don't take the place of definitions. Examples can be useful for clarifying definitions, but they aren't particularly useful on their own. André -- To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.