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

On 06/07/2026 20:45, olcott wrote:
> On 7/6/2026 12:27 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2026-07-06 10:58, 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.
>>
>> And you presumably have a reference to back that up?
> 
> It is common knowledge that was Robinson's purpose

Hearsay is does not a proof.

-- 
Mikko