After carefully reading Godel's proof I came to the conclusion that the real problem is our insistence on the "true" "false" dichotomy. I now, instead, hold a tri-valued position on the issue: i.e., these words are tags we place on statements and there is a third category which is generally ignored. That third category is what I call "meaningless".

Thus it is possible any statement may be "true", "false" or "meaningless"; actually determining the correct tag is often very difficult but I believe the categories are complete. My categories are defined as follows: if you can prove it is correct it is "true", if you can prove it is wrong it is "false" and if you can prove it cannot be proved it is "meaningless".

You may not like my name for the third category but I find it quite reasonable. Unless you can provide me with an example which fits my definition and not the connotations of that word, I will stick by it as the best name for that third category (certainly Godel's proof itself demands that third category).

Using my definition, it is my opinion that most arguments revolve around meaningless issues.

Life is fun -- Dick

• Meaningful to Godel - yanniru - March 16, 2001 - 16:17 UTC
  • a question of definition - doctordick - March 16, 2001 - 22:31 UTC