```Date: Mar 3, 2013 12:43 AM
Author: Graham Cooper
Subject: How can NO LOGICIAN follow this argument??

Look for the phrase CONSTRUCT-A-SENTENCE>   [DARYL]>   Fix a coding for arithmetic, that is, a way to associate a unique>   natural number with each statement of arithmetic. In terms of this>   coding, a truth predicate Tr(x) is a formula with the following>   property: For any statement S in the language of arithmetic,>   Tr(#S) <-> S>   holds (where #S means the natural number coding the sentence S).>   If Tr(x) is a formula of arithmetic, then using techniques>   developed by Godel, we can construct a sentence L such that>   L <-> ~Tr(#L)>>   [JESSE]>   Goedel *explicitly* constructed a formula P and showed>   that both (1) and (2) were true of P.[HERC] "We can construct a formula"     /\     ||     \/ "We can construct *ANY* formula" T |- any formula ex contradictione sequitur quodlibet from a contradiction, anything followshttp://blockprolog.com/EX-CONTRADICTIONE-SEQUITUR-QUODLIBET.png-----------------Godel and Tarski proofs were  PRE AXIOMATIC SET THEORY!Herc--TOM:  You can't agree with this!BETTY:  That's right!PAMMY:  I don't agree!THE WOMEN'S INCOMPREHENSION THEORY!
```