XPost: comp.theory, comp.lang.prolog   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 1/14/2026 9:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 1/14/26 7:51 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 1/14/2026 6:26 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:   
   >>> On 15/01/2026 00:14, olcott wrote:   
   >>>> The halting problem proof fails ...   
   >>>   
   >>> Do you mean "The halting problem proof supposition fails ..." ?   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> The proof does not prove that halting is undecidable.   
   >>   
   >> By proof‑theoretic semantics I mean the approach in which the   
   >> meaning of a statement is determined by its rules of proof   
   >> rather than by truth conditions in an external model.   
   >> Operational semantics fits this pattern: programs have meaning   
   >> through their execution rules, not through abstract denotations.   
   >>   
   >   
   > But "Proof-Theoretic Semantics" aren't applicable to the system.   
   >   
   > I guess in you system you can't make a computation that verifies that a   
   > proof is correct.   
   >   
   > Your problem is you are not ALLOWED to change the semantics of the   
   > system the proof was done in.   
   >   
      
   Sure you are. "Proof-Theoretic Semantics" does not derive the   
   incoherence of truth conditional semantics.   
      
   > At best, you can say it doesn't apply in other systems, but those system   
   > end up being deficent in some needed criteria.   
   >   
   > Being able to handle the properties of the Natural Numbers is one of them.   
      
      
   --   
   Copyright 2026 Olcott

   
      
   My 28 year goal has been to make 
   
   "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
   
   reliably computable.

   
      
   This required establishing a new foundation
   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)