XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, sci.lang   
   XPost: comp.lang.prolog   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 2/6/2026 12:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 2/6/26 10:30 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 2/6/2026 3:01 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>> On 05/02/2026 18:55, olcott wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> Changing the foundational basis to Proof Theoretic Semantics   
   >>>> Tarski Undefinability is overcome   
   >>>>   
   >>>> x ∈ Provable ⇔ x ∈ True // proof theoretic semantics   
   >>>   
   >>> A definition in terms of an undefined symbol does not really define.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> It is an axiom: ∀x (Provable(x) ⇒ True(x))   
   >   
   > But the axiom uses ⇒ which goes in just one direction, while you   
   > statements used ⇔ which attempts to go both ways.   
   >   
      
   This was corrected by an expert that seems   
   to really know these things.   
      
   This same expert agrees that with within PTS:   
   "if x is provable, then it is true."   
      
   >   
   >>   
   >> There are dozens of papers needed to verify this.   
   >> It will take me quite a while to form proper citations   
   >> of these papers. It is anchored in proof theoretic semantics.   
   >> Generic PTS states that ~Provable(x) ⇔ Meaningless(x).   
   >> Model theory and truth conditional semantics are rejected.   
   >>   
   >   
   > And, I think your problem is you don't actually understand what you are   
   > reading. This shows in that you have been making the claim for years,   
   > but you are now admitting you can't ACTUALLY show why it is (yet).   
   >   
      
   ∀x  (~Provable(x) ⇔ Meaningless(x))   
   Seems to be exactly and precisely what Proof Theoretic   
   Semantics actually says. Since the SEP article was   
   written by the guy that coined the term:   
   "Proof Theoretic Semantics"   
   It should be pretty definitive.   
      
   https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/   
      
   > Your problem is it seems you fundamentally don't understand how   
   > semantics work, and why it is important to put things into context.   
   >   
      
   Not at all. It all in "Proof Theoretic Semantics"   
      
   > This shows in part because you keep on trying to apply principles for   
   > general Philosophy to Formal Logic, where they do not apply.   
   >   
      
   Try saying that after you spend three hours carefully studying   
   the linked article. That article is not the end-all be-all   
   of "Proof Theoretic Semantics", yet it does seem to be the   
   most definitive single source.   
      
   > Sorry, you are just showing your fundamental ignorance of what you are   
   > talking about.   
      
      
   --   
   Copyright 2026 Olcott

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

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