[FOM] Logicomix and intuitionistic truth

[Panu Raatikainen]

Vaughan Pratt wrote:

> My post was about intuitionistic truth, a concept which Raatikainen
> flatly denies.

I did not deny the concept (whatever that means) - I was simply asking  
for a clear explanation of it.

> I wish I could come up with as compelling a demonstration of
> intuitionistic truth,
    :
> The most fundamental semantics of intuitionistic logic is that of Kripke


"intuitionistic truth" is a concept, not a statement or a proposition,  
so I don't understand what it would mean to demonstrate it...

Anyway, Kripke semantics and such are fine, as technical formal tools,  
but I think all serious intuitionists agree that they have nothing to  
do with the *intended* semantics of intuitionistic logic, which is in  
terms of informal, intuitive notions of proof and provability. And  
that's what my query is about.


Best, Panu