Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat

On Oct 5, 11:09 pm, Peter_Smith <ps...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 6 Oct, 06:21, Newberry <newberr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I have never seen any proof of this. I also remember that some time
ago Rupert wrote that if the theory has canonical valuation then it
will also be semantically incomplete. It implies that if the theory
does not have canonical valuation then it will not necessarily be
semantically incomplete.

Sorry, perhaps I'm misunderstanding. What do you mean by "semantically
incomplete"?

That there wll be true but unprovable sentences.

By syntactically incomplete I mean that will be some formulas F such
that neither F nor ~F are provable.


.