Article citationsMore>>
Feferman, et al. (1995) op. cit. Volume III, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 439. In the textual notes is written: “The copy-text for *1930c [...] was one of several items in an envelope that Gödel labelled “Manuskripte Korrekt der 3 Arbeiten in Mo[nats]H[efte] + Wiener Vorträge über die ersten zwei” (manuscripts, proofs for the three papers in Monatshefte [1930, 1931, and 1933i] plus Vienna lectures on the first two.) On the basis of that label, *1930c ought to be the text of Gödel’s presentation to Menger’s colloquium on 14 May 1930—the only occasion, aside from the meeting in Königsberg, on which Gödel is known to have lectured on his dissertation results [...]. Internal evidence, however, especially the reference on the last page to the incompleteness discovery, suggests that the text must be that of the later talk. Since no other lecture text on this topic has been found, it may well be that Gödel used the same basic text on both occasions, with a few later additions”.
has been cited by the following article:
-
TITLE:
Consequences of a Godel’s Misjudgment
AUTHORS:
Giuseppe Raguní
KEYWORDS:
Semantic Completeness, Syntactic Incompleteness, Categoricity, Arithmetic, Second-Order Languages, Paradoxes
JOURNAL NAME:
Open Access Library Journal,
Vol.2 No.9,
September
15,
2015
ABSTRACT:
The fundamental aim of the paper is to
correct a harmful way to interpret a Godel’s erroneous remark at the Congress
of Konigsberg in 1930. Although the Godel’s
fault is rather venial, its misreading has
produced and continues to produce dangerous fruits, so as to apply the incompleteness Theorems to the full second-order Arithmetic and to
deduce the semantic incompleteness of its language by these same Theorems. The
first three paragraphs are introductory and serve to define the languages inherently semantic and its properties,
to discuss the consequences of the expression order used in a language and some
questions about the
semantic completeness. In particular, it is
highlighted that a non-formal theory may be semantically complete despite using
a language semantically incomplete. Finally, an alternative interpretation for the Godel’s unfortunate comment is proposed.