Hacker News Reader

Wittgenstein's devastating critique of [Gödel 1931] came afterward.

See the article referenced in this discussion.

Thanks for the response Professor. What do you make of the following article though? It concludes that the critique is not devastating to Gödel

Unfortunately, the author Timm Lampert did not quote the most

powerful Wittgenstein proof that existence of I'mUnprovable

means that mathematical foundations are inconsistent.

Wittgenstein's more powerful version is much more

devastating.

As mentioned previously in this discussion, the following

article explains why I'mUnprovable must not and does not

exist in foundations:

"Recrafting Foundations of Mathematics"