Godel's 1st theorem is about there being true maths statement which cannot be proven. Yet Godel cannot tell us what makes a maths statement true. Thus his theorem is meaningless.

Godel's proof uses his G statement. Yet his G statement is self referential and is banned/outlawed by the axiom of the system he says he is using. Thus his proof is invalid.

To see all the proofs that Godel ends in meaninglessness.

Read.

gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/books/phi ... GODEL5.pdfGODEL’S INCOMPLETENESS THEOREM. ENDS IN ABSURDITY OR MEANINGLESSNESS GODEL IS A COMPLETE FAILURE AS HE ENDS IN UTTER MEANINGLESSNESS

CASE STUDY IN THE MEANINGLESSNESS OF ALL VIEWS

-- Updated Sun Oct 23, 2016 3:38 am to add the following --

to give proofs of the two points.

1) Godels theorem in semantic terms reads.

buten.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_in ... ss_theorem

“Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true,[1] but not provable in the theory (Kleene 1967, p. 250)

Peter Smith the Cambridge expert on Godel admitts godel does not tell us what truth is.

thus without telling us what makes a maths statement true Godels theorem is meaningless.peter smith the Cambridge expert on Godel admitts

groups.google.com/group/sci.logic/brows ... 12ee69f0a8

Quote:

Gödel didn't rely on the notion

of truth

2) Godels G statement is self referential.

Godel uses the axiom of reducibility in his proof.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_in ... ss_theorem

“the corresponding Gödel sentence G asserts: “G cannot be proved to be true within the theory T””

but.and as godel states he is useing the logic of PM ie AR

“P is essentially the system obtained by superimposing on the Peano

axioms the logic of PM” ie AR

AR outlaws bans impredicative statements

Thus Godels G statement is self referential and is banned/outlawed by the axiom of the system he says he is using. Thus his proof is invalid.http://www.enotes.com/topic/Axiom_of_reducibility

russells axiom of reducibility was formed such that impredicative

statements where banned