[Wittrs] In a Logical Proof, Don't Expect Semantics from Syntax!
- From: Joseph Polanik <jpolanik@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 02 May 2010 11:12:35 -0400
SWM wrote:
>Joseph Polanik wrote:
>>>Your "proof" did not prove anything. It merely showed a series of
>>>relationships which, if they obtained, lead to a certain conclusion
>>that's what a proof is.
>A syllogistic type proof has a logical form but the form is empty
>without content ...
precisely. a formal proof is a proof that the syntax of that logical
form is valid.
>and therefore proves nothing.
wrong. what is proved is that a particular sequence of syntactic
transformations is valid; meaning, done according to the rules.
>You are confusing form with substance.
no, you are confused. you are still expecting syntactic manipulations to
generate semantic content (understanding, meaning, intentionality or
whatever).
>I think you are so enthused with the idea of "formal proof" that you
>forget that it's empty by definition.
you are so enthralled by the illusion of getting semantics from syntax
that you forget that a formal proof is supposed to be syntactic not
semantic.
Joe
--
Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
==========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
