the australian philosopher colin leslie dean has shown Godel incompleteness theorem is meaningless as he has no idea what truth is

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com...phy/GODEL5.pdf
Godels syntactic version of his incompleteness theorem reads

To every ω-consistent recursive class c of formulae there correspond recursive class-signs r, such that neither v Gen r nor Neg (v Gen r) belongs to Flg(c) (where v is the free variable of r).

when we put words to this syntactic/formal theorem we get

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6...eness_theorems
Gdel's first incompleteness theorem, states that:

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.

in other words his theorem is

there are true mathematical statements which cant be proven

but godel cant tell us what makes a mathematical statement true

thus his theorem is meaningless

it is as if godel is telling us that there a gibble statements which cant be proven

but cant tell us what a gibble statement is

Now Godel had no idea of what truth is as peter smith of cambridge

admitts

thus his incompleteness theorems is meaningless rubbish

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com...phy/GODEL5.pdf
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.l...thread/ebde70b...

de566912ee69f0a8?lnk=gst&q=G%C3%B6del+didn%27t+rel y+on+the+notion+PETER

+smith#de 566912ee69f0a8

Quote:

**Gdel didn't rely on the notion**

of truth
but truth is central to his theorem

as peter smith kindly tellls us

http://assets.cambridge.org/97805218...40_excerpt.pdf
Quote:

Godel did is find a general method that enabled him to take any theory T strong enough to capture a modest amount of basic arithmetic and construct a corresponding arithmetical sentence GT which encodes the claim The sentence GT itself is unprovable in theory T. So G T is

**true** if and only if T cant prove it

If we can locate GT

, a Godel sentence for our favourite nicely ax-

iomatized theory of arithmetic T, and can argue that G T is

**true**-but-unprovable,