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

On 06/07/2026 19:58, olcott wrote:
> On 7/6/2026 11:07 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> 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? 
> 
> Make sure that Q has less capability than PA is its design
> spec by its designer.

Where is that specified?

-- 
Mikko