It doesn’t talk about Gödel numbering, which is the real ingenuity behind the proof,
Depends if you only want to show that set theory is incomplete, you don’t need Gödel numbering and you can more-or-less turn Smullyan’s explanation into a complete proof in a straightforward manner.
Depends if you only want to show that set theory is incomplete, you don’t need Gödel numbering and you can more-or-less turn Smullyan’s explanation into a complete proof in a straightforward manner.
Depends if you only want to show that set theory is incomplete, you don’t need Gödel numbering and you can more-or-less turn Smullyan’s explanation into a complete proof in a straightforward manner.
Ok, I agree that this is an important point.
You’re right, I hadn’t thought about that.