Re: Torkel Franzen on truth

On 16 Dec, 00:10, george <gree...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Dec 15, 6:55 pm, Peter_Smith <ps...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

What UTTER bull***. You do NOT have to affix a whole theory
of semantics, OR interpret anything, IN ORDER to allege that
SOME of the strings in the language ARE AXIOMS!

That's trivially true of course.

THE AXIOMS are what you communicate
with. The axioms are characterizable AS such SYNTACTICALLY,
after the signature has been established. And they communicate
just fine, thank you.

No they don't, if all I give you is the signature.

I give you a formal syntax with the signature of the language of PA. I
set down an axiom

x + 0 = 0

That communicates *nothing* unless I also tell you whether '+'
expresses e.g. addition or multiplication, and '0' denotes e.g. zero
or one (or maybe something else altogether).
.

Quantcast