Nam Nguyen wrote: > On 6/21/2013 5:20 AM, Peter Percival wrote:
>> >> What point do you think you're making? > > The point is his below statement is meaningless on multiple accounts: > > "There are propositions in ZFC that are neither true nor false". > > And on one account, ZFC is _not_ a language in which a proposition (e.g. > GCH) would be written in, as in his "propositions in ZFC".
So what? "There are propositions in ZFC that are neither true nor false" is obviously just shorthand for "There are propositions in the language of ZFC that are neither true nor false". The language of ZFC being that FO language with one binary predicate conventionally written $\in$.
Btw, _where_ is the first error in Gödel's 1931 proof of his incompleteness theorem? Where is it in his Princeton proof? Where is it in Kleene's book? Where is the first error in his proof of the completeness theorem? Where is the first error in Henkins proof? In Rasiowa and Sikorski's?
-- I think I am an Elephant, Behind another Elephant Behind /another/ Elephant who isn't really there.... A.A. Milne