This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
This page might be made clearer if the same fonts were used in the text as in the expressions. (I mean, use the LaTeX version of the symbol in the text)... I tried doing this in this comment but found that Wikipedia automatically converts "< math > \ phi < / math >" into . Is it possible to get the symbol in without the ?
Shouldn't this be in WikiBooks? --Rory☺ 17:31, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be called Godels INcompleteness theorem, for which there is already an article and proof here?
No. In addition to his incompleteness theorem, Goedel also proved a completeness theorem, in which he proved that any logically sound statement can be proven in 1st order logic.
Why is there since 13 January 2006 the incompleteness theorem at the page of the completeness theorem? Thank you for removing this again. Why is the core part of the proof missing, is anybody able to complete it?