No Pete. It doesn't apply to the "entire body of analytical truth".PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed Jun 17, 2020 6:07 pm The humongous difference is that my formulation applies to the entire body of

analytical truth thus within its sound deductive inference model Gödel's 1931

Incompleteness theorem is simply incorrect.

The completeness theorem only holds for

**first order logic.**. If you think human reasoning/knowledge can be represented in first order logic you are very very naive. Surely you understand the very notion of abstraction layers?

Your entire project is an attempt at stratifying English semantics. So then surely then a logic with stronger semantics is better for what it is that you are trying to achieve?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher-order_logic

And if you accept the idea that natural language (and the analytical knowledge we express in it) is a higher order logic then you need to take into account the curse of dimensionality.In mathematics and logic, a higher-order logic is a form of predicate logic that is distinguished from first-order logic by additional quantifiers and, sometimes, stronger semantics. Higher-order logics with their standard semantics are more expressive, but their model-theoretic properties are less well-behaved than those of first-order logic.