On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 7:35 PM, Phillip Gawlowski
<cmdjackryan / googlemail.com> wrote:

>  After all, any consistent system should be provable, but isn't. But if
>  it isn't provable, it isn't consistent, but yet it is.
No Göäel is not talking about consistent systems, he has only (that is
a strange adjective in this context, but you know how I mean it)
proven that all *complete* systems are inconsistent.

Eivind can you explain this better? Or am I wrong after all?  I really
liked how you put things last time, felt kind of, gosh that is exactly
what I should have sayed...

Cheers
Robert