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

André G. Isaak <[email protected]>
Newsgroups sci.logic,comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.math
Organization Christians and Atheists United Against Creeping Agnosticism
Message-ID <[email protected]> 
On 2026-07-06 09:47, olcott wrote:
> On 7/6/2026 4:17 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 04/07/2026 20:07, olcott wrote:

>>> Q that cannot resolve (∀x, S(x) ≠ x) is complete
>>> according to its definition.
>>
>> By the defintion of "incomplete" Q is incomplete. The theory
>> Q + (∀x, S(x) ≠ x) is more complete but still incomplete.
> 
> It fully meets its design spec thus calling it
> any kind of incomplete is a damned lie.

What exactly do you think the 'design spec' of Q is? The mathematical 
definition of 'incomplete' doesn't make any mentions of 'design specs'.

André

-- 
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail 
service.
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.