Transforming formal proof into sound deduction (rewritten)

[Logik]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_overload

Not at all. Ambiguity is not more expressive than the absence of ambiguity.
Every term is uniquely qualified to specify only a single semantic meaning.

False dichotomy,

Saying something ambiguous is more expressive than saying nothing at all.

[PeteOlcott]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_overload

Not at all. Ambiguity is not more expressive than the absence of ambiguity.
Every term is uniquely qualified to specify only a single semantic meaning.

False dichotomy,

Saying something ambiguous is more expressive than saying nothing at all.

False dichotomy,
Saying something ambiguously is less expressive (of intended meaning) than saying something unambiguously.
Referring to bachelor ambiguously is less expressive (of intended meaning) than referring to Martial_State->Bachelor.

[wtf]

Stanford has been paying you a salary for 22 years.

I must have missed that. Is PeteOlcott an employee of Stanford university? In what capacity? Just curious.

[Logik]

Stanford has been paying you a salary for 22 years.

I must have missed that. Is PeteOlcott an employee of Stanford university? In what capacity? Just curious.

It may be a faulty inference on my part.

In between reading his posts here and on various other forums, I thought I connected dots to Stanford. Could be another Olcott...