From: mikko.levanto@iki.fi   
      
   On 21/01/2026 15:46, Tristan Wibberley wrote:   
   > On 20/01/2026 09:48, Mikko wrote:   
   >> On 19/01/2026 17:00, Tristan Wibberley wrote:   
   >>> On 19/01/2026 08:19, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>> But the syntactic incompleteness is still there. Both G and ¬G are   
   >>>> well-formed formulas of Peano arithmetic but neither is provable.   
   >>>> The well-formed formula G ∨ ¬G is provable, and so is G → G.   
   >>>   
   >>> whose "or" operator are you talking about?   
   >>   
   >> The symbol ∨ above is a connective of ordinary logic.   
   >   
   > I have the impression that we use a symbol that several authors have   
   > used for subtly different concepts. Can you name a defining author whose   
   > definition I should find freely on The Internet as the definition that   
   > you rely on?   
      
   I don't any web site that I could trust to meet your   
   requirement.However, as far as I know, all authors agree about its meaning   
   for ordinary logic. For other kinds of logic it is better to skip   
   every opus that does not define the exact meaning.   
      
   --   
   Mikko   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)