Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G h as no meaning in PA

On 2026-07-03 12:20, olcott wrote:
> On 7/3/2026 12:35 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:

>> And that differs from claiming that Q is incomplete exactly how...?
>>
> 
> The base definition of "incomplete" means that it is
> not operating according to design spec.

And where exactly do you get this 'base definition' from? It certainly 
does not correspond to any definition that I am aware of.

> terms of the art
> are often misleading, thus deceptive.

Terms of the art are what they are. They are precisely defined so there 
is no doubt about what they mean. So how can they therefore be 
misleading. It's colloquial terms that have the potential to be 
misleading since they are often not precisely defined.

> When we start with an exhaustively complete list of
> empirical "atomic facts" of general knowledge (combining
> the analytic/synthetic distinction into one single system)
> then any expression x that cannot be derived by semantic
> entailment expressed syntactically in this system is
> not an element of the body of general knowledge expressed
> in language.

Q isn't concerned with general knowledge (expressed in language or 
otherwise). It doesn't contain any notion of 'atomic fact'. So none of 
this is relevant to the question of whether Q is complete.

André

-- 
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail 
service.