XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, comp.ai.philosophy   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 1/24/2026 8:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 1/24/26 9:21 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >> We will not be able to have a productive   
   >> conversation until you learn more about   
   >> proof theory. I will look for some good   
   >> references.   
   >   
   > Yes, do so, and note that the concept of "Not Well Founded" isn't talked   
   > about as a "Truth Value", because it will not be actually determinable   
   > (in general) by Proof Theoretic Semantics since it is often not actually   
   > provable in the system.   
   >   
      
   I am working on grounding my ideas in peer reviewed papers   
   on proof theoretic semantics. Most of the papers have lots   
   of irrelevant detail.   
      
   > You will find that it (Proof Theory) just finds some statements outside   
   > its ability to interpret a semantics for them. This happens for a number   
   > of mathematical statements, where assuming a proof of them not being   
   > well founded ends up proving them to be well founded and provides the   
   > truth value for 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)