From: tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk   
      
   On 17/01/2026 20:31, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >> What was undecidable in truth conditional semantics   
   >> becomes non-well-founded thus semantically ill‑formed   
   >> in proof theoretic semantics. Non-well-founded a   
   >> conventional term of the art from proof theoretic semantics.   
   >   
   > And that non-well-founded property is non-well-founded for some   
   > quesiton, breaking your system.   
      
      
   I fear that maybe when we have some:   
      
     ∀x.F(x)   
      
   that it is a /strong/ SPEC rule (opposite of GEN) that is the problem;   
   that a weak SPEC rule will allow us to have a useful, consistent system,   
   because specialisation might be applicable only to well-founded instances.   
      
   That is, it is an invalidly strong semantic choice for universal   
   quantification in semantical systems that is the driving force for   
   inconsistency.   
      
   How does semantics relate to intension in this area? It seems to me   
   they're related.   
      
   --   
   Tristan Wibberley   
      
   The message body is Copyright (C) 2026 Tristan Wibberley except   
   citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may,   
   of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it   
   verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to   
   promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation   
   of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general   
   superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train   
   any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that   
   will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)