Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics
dbush <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | sci.logic,comp.theory,sci.math,comp.ai.philosophy |
|---|---|
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 7/1/2026 2:51 PM, olcott wrote: > On 7/1/2026 1:45 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >> 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 >> > > You want a definition look-it-up. > I don't ask for the book definition of the term. I want to know what *you* think it means for the truth value of a statement to not exist in a formal system *in your own words*.