Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics

On 02/07/2026 07:03, olcott wrote:
> On 7/1/2026 11:01 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 7/1/2026 11:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/1/2026 10:43 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 7/1/2026 11:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/1/2026 10:18 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/1/2026 11:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/1/2026 10:00 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/1/2026 10:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/1/2026 9:36 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/1/2026 7:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/1/2026 4:15 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/1/2026 5:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/1/2026 3:57 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/1/2026 4:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/1/2026 3:37 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/1/2026 4:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/1/2026 3:13 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-01 13:53, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/1/2026 2:31 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-01 12:51, 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Until someone publishes an Olcott to Standard 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> English dictionary, this isn't really an option.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> True(L, X) ≡ ∃Γ ⊆ BaseFacts(L) (Γ ⊢ X) // copyright 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott 2018
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has been updated to this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> True(L, X):= ∃Γ ⊆ AtomicFacts(L) (Γ ⊢ X)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That claims what it means to have the truth value 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'true' (or at least it would if you defined 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AtomicFacts in a coherent way). It doesn't in any way 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clarify what you think it means for something to not 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a truth value.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When I define a term hundreds of times and you did
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not bother to pay attention that is your mistake
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and your fault.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You gave no such definition of what it means for the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth value of a statement to not exist in a formal system.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A valid answer would look something like this:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "The truth value of a statement does not exist in a 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formal system when ..."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now complete the sentence.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is neither provable nor refutable in F.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good.  So when you say "The truth value of (∀ x, S(x) ≠ x) 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does not exist in Q", you mean "(∀ x, S(x) ≠ x) is 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unprovable in Q", which is commonly known.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So once again, you're saying the same thing as everyone 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else but using different words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not really. It is normally thought of as undecidable
>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning that Q is incomplete meaning that Q is deficient.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> False.  It means that there are statements in the language 
>>>>>>>>>>>> of Q that have *only* an infinite connection to the axioms 
>>>>>>>>>>>> of the system.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> OK, I verified that.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Halting Problem counter-example input 
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Which starts with the assumption that an algorithm H exists 
>>>>>>>>>>>> that meets the following requirements:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of 
>>>>>>>>>>>> instructions) X described as <X> with input Y:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that 
>>>>>>>>>>>> computes the following mapping:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> (<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed 
>>>>>>>>>>>> directly
>>>>>>>>>>>> (<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when 
>>>>>>>>>>>> executed directly
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sure and we could equally start with the requirement
>>>>>>>>>>> to prove that there exists a natural number > 3 and < 2.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I really don't see how everyone did not immediately see
>>>>>>>>>>> that the requirement for H to correctly report the halt
>>>>>>>>>>> status of input D that does the opposite of whatever H
>>>>>>>>>>> reports is a moronically stupid requirement within the
>>>>>>>>>>> first five minutes that this requirement was made.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In other words, you don't understand that if this was 
>>>>>>>>>> algorithm H:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I spent 10,000 hours on it over 22 years.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And still don't understand that this algorithm:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> void D(ptr *I)
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>      ptr *X = D;
>>>>>>>>      ptr *Y = I;
>>>>>>>>      int result;
>>>>>>>>      {
>>>>>>>>          result = 0;
>>>>>>>>      }
>>>>>>>>      if (result == 1) {
>>>>>>>>          while (1);
>>>>>>>>      }
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is the counter example input to this algorithm:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> int H(ptr *X, ptr *Y)
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>      int result;
>>>>>>>>      {
>>>>>>>>          result = 0;
>>>>>>>>      }
>>>>>>>>      return result;
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is just nonsense.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thereby proving that you've misunderstood the halting problem for 
>>>>>> the last 22 years.
>>>>>
>>>>> D(D);   // merely halts
>>>>> H(D,D); // merely returns 0 and never looks at D(D)
>>>>
>>>> And algorithm H is wrong about algorithm D because algorithm D 
>>>> contains a copy of algorithm H and does the opposite.
>>>
>>> You just don't know jack shit dufus.
>>> I have been a professional C programmer since 1986.
>>>
>>
>> Says the person that just demonstrated that they don't know the 
>> difference between an algorithm and a C function.
>>
> 
> Back to being ignored for trolling again.

Maybe by someone but you are still far from being ignored by everone.

-- 
Mikko