Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics

On 7/2/2026 3:33 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/2/2026 1:22 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 7/2/2026 2:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/2/2026 11:55 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 7/2/2026 12:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/2/2026 11:04 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/2/2026 10:51 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/2/2026 1:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you know enough about C to understand that
>>>>>>> dbush example was foolish nonsense when proposed
>>>>>>> to show the halting problem counter-example?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It perfectly illustrates an algorithm that attempts to be a halt 
>>>>>> decider, 
>>>>>
>>>>> Ridiculously stupid. Your H does not even look at its input.
>>>>
>>>> Algorithm H doesn't need to read its inputs in order to map all 
>>>> inputs to non-halting.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Also your D simply stops running I ran it to verify.
>>>>
>>>> Verifying that algorithm H doesn't correctly report what algorithm D 
>>>> does, as per the design of algorithm D.
>>>>

Still no reply to this, so I have to assume you agree it's correct.

>>>
>>> I am trying to keep liars from killing the
>>> whole fucking planet by making truth computable
>>
>> Which can't be done as proved by Turing / Godel / Tarksi and others.
>>
> 
> By proving the errors in logic I can make
> logic into correct reasoning. That most
> logic people are a herd of sheep that would
> gladly leap off the POE cliff when that is
> what their herd accepts makes correcting this
> error too fucking difficult.

There is no error.  The POE follows from a series of truth preserving 
operations starting with the precondition that a contradiction has been 
proven true in the system in question.

You agreed with this when you dishonestly dodged the question (on 
multiple occasions) of how P can be true and P ∨ Q can be false.