> we should rarely attribute meaninglessness to statements unless we are forced to. You don't “attribute meaninglessness” to statements. Syntax is a priori mea

> we should rarely attribute meaninglessness to statements unless we are forced to. You don't “attribute meaninglessness” to statements. Syntax is a priori meaningless, and the rules for manipulating it give it meaning. “Meaninglessness” is thus just the lack of a given meaning. > You would have to have very compelling reasons for analyzing mathematical statements the way you want to, and I haven't heard any, only your conviction that it's right. Here's a good reason: leveraging the power and reliability of computers for doing mathematics, which is only possible if syntax is mechanically interpretable. The kind of word tricks you suggest, like interpreting a sentence containing the phrase “the King of France” as implicitly asserting the existence (and uniqueness) of a King of France (in addition to whatever you explicitly say about him), are incompatible with a nice, compositional, crystal clear, reliable, mechanical interpretation of syntax.