Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics

[ Followup-To: set ]

In comp.theory dbush <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 7/1/2026 2:54 PM, olcott wrote:
> > On 7/1/2026 1:35 PM, dbush wrote:

[ .... ]

> >> Tell me, *in your own words*, what you think it means for the truth 
> >> value of a statement to not exist in a formal system.

> > I have mean exactly what Wittgenstein (1937) means
> > several years before I ever heard of him.

> What you think he means and what others think he means may not be the same.

> That's why I asked you what you think it means in your own words.

You're asking Olcott an abstract question, a very abstract question, and
it is simply beyond his intellect even to understand it, never mind
answer it.

There used to be another crank in sci.math who would repeatedly assert
that "negative numbers don't exist" and similar.  When I asked him what
exactly he meant by "don't exist", there came no coherent answer.

I think you're being somewhat unfair expecting a coherent answer from
somebody of Peter Olcott's intellectual prowess.  It seems clear to me
that he spuriously equates "provable" with "true".  He's incapable of
understanding that propositions can be both true and unprovable, despite
mentally grappling with the notion for many years.

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).