Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics

On 7/1/2026 3:02 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/1/2026 1:56 PM, dbush wrote:
>> 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*.
> 
> I have already said this thousands of times in the
> last ten years.
> 

Only liars refuse to define their terms.