This page is keyboard accessible:
• Use Tab, Shift + Tab keys to traverse the main menu. To enter a sub-menu use the Right Arrow key. To leave a sub-menu use the Left Arrow or the Escape key.
• The Enter or the Space key opens the active menu item.
• To skip the menu and move to the main content, press Tab after the page loads to reveal a skip button.
• To get back to the top of the page anytime, press the Home key.
• For more information, click here: Accessibility   Close this tip.

Note: Full functionality of this web page requires JavaScript to be enabled in your browser.

Gödel’s Proposition V

In Gödel’s proof of incompleteness (see online English translation of Gödel’s original proof or English translation of Gödel’s original proof, PDF file) there is an arbitrary distinction between number-theoretic relations and formulas of the formal system.


In the proof, a symbol sequence such as “x + SSSSSS0 > SSS0” is simply a sequence of symbols that belongs to the formal system, and “x + SSSSSS0 > SSS0” is not a number-theoretic relation, nor can it be a name that refers to an abstract number-theoretic relation.


But on the other hand an expression such as “x + 6 > 3” is either a number-theoretic relation, or else a name that refers to the abstract concept that is an abstract number-theoretic relation.


However, Proposition V in Gödel’s proof refers in a vague way to some sort of isomorphism between abstract number-theoretic relations and formulas of the formal system, by simply asserting that there is a “correspondence” between every number-theoretic relation that is recursive and some formula of the formal system. Of course there is no essential difference between “x + 6 > 3” and “x + SSSSSS0 > SSS0”; they simply belong to slightly different systems. And that simply means that, given a language that is a meta-language to both systems, there can be a translation function in that meta-language that translates the symbol sequences of the system to symbol sequences of the other system.


And that means that if “x + 6 > 3” is simply a name that refers to the abstract concept that is an abstract number-theoretic relation, then “x + SSSSSS0 > SSS0” is also a name that refers to the very same abstract concept.


Or if the symbol sequence “x + 6 > 3” satisfies the definition of a number-theoretic relation, then the symbol sequence “x + SSSSSS0 > SSS0” also satisfies that definition.


Gödel’s paper doesn’t define “number-theoretic relation”; and Gödel’s perfunctory outline of how a proof of his Proposition V might be created relies on the pretense that formulas of the formal system are not number-theoretic relations, nor are they names for the same abstract concept as number-theoretic relations. Without that pretense, his proof outline results in a blatant contradiction as shown below (see also the paper The Fundamental Flaw in Gödel’s Proof of the Incompleteness Theorem PDF ):


Gödel’s Proposition V is expressed in terms of variables x1, x1, …, u1, u1, … . But, as for any other mathematical proposition, one can use different variable names in a proposition, provided they do not clash with variable names that are already in that proposition. In Gödel’s proof we have the Gödel numbering function defined as Φ(sf), where sf is a symbol sequence of the formal system. He also defines a variable numbering function which assigns a number to every variable of the formal system. Gödel does not give this function a name, but for convenience we shall assign the name β(V) to it, where V is a variable of the formal system.


Gödel’s Proposition V is (here in terms of relations with only one free variable):


  R(x1) ⇒ Bew{Sb[r, u1, Z(x1)]}


¬R(x1) ⇒ Bew{Neg Sb[r, u1, Z(x1)]}


The terms relation-sign and free variable have special meanings in Gödel’s proof. The term relation-sign r means that r is a number where there is a formal system formula sf, where r = Φ(sf), and the term free variable u1 means that u1 is a number where u1 = β(V).


So we can write Gödel’s Proposition V with these terms explicitly defined, as follows:


  R(x1) ⇒ Bew{Sb[r, u1, Z(x1)]}


¬R(x1) ⇒ Bew{Neg Sb[r, u1, Z(x1)]}


Now, take any R(x1) as referred to by the proposition, and translate it into a formula of the formal system. Either that formula is a recursive relation, or else it is a name that refers to the abstract concept that is the same abstract number-theoretic relation as the R(x1) referred to originally.


So there will be such formulas of the formal system for which Proposition V holds. Let’s call one such formula Rf (x1), where x is the free variable of that formula. So that formula satisfies Gödel’s definition of recursive, and has one free variable x1 and (3) and (4) above hold for that formula, which gives:


  Rf (x1) ⇒ Bew{Sb[r, u1, Z(x1)]}


¬Rf (x1) ⇒ Bew{Neg Sb[r, u1, Z(x1)]}


And, according to Gödel, the number u1 may be chosen arbitrarily (as long as it corresponds to a variable of the formal system by the function β ). So we can choose 17 as the value, where this corresponds to the variable x1 of the formal system by the equality 17 = β(x1).


Applying the above in the statement of the proposition we obtain:


  Rf (x1) ⇒ Bew{Sb[r, 17, Z(x1)]}


¬Rf (x1) ⇒ Bew{Neg Sb[r, 17, Z(x1)]}


This is of course, ridiculous, since in the above proposition, in (5) and (6), the term 17 is supposedly a constant, but at the same time it is defined as being equal to β(x1), and in the proposition x1 is a variable, so the term β(x1) cannot be a constant. (Footnote: Note that choosing 19 as the value for u1 so that 19 = β(x2) does not circumvent the problem, since we would then have, within the same proposition, one variable of the formal system that is a variable, and another variable of the formal system that is not a variable, but a constant - which is equally absurd.)


This demonstrates the absurdities present in Gödel’s Proposition V, a proposition for which he declined to actually furnish a proof (amazingly, his paper was accepted despite this obvious mathematical no-no). This shows why it was absurd to simply assume that it was a valid proposition. It isn’t, it’s nonsensical due to a confusion of language and meta-language. See also Gödel’s contradiction.


The language confusion arises because the proposition implies a function that translates from “number-theoretic relations” to formal system formulas (the correspondence referred to in the proposition), but if such a function is used, then that function is a meta-language to both “number-theoretic relations” and formal system formulas. And that means that in that function all symbols and symbol sequences of both “number-theoretic relations” and formal system formulas are objects as seen by that function, and therefore they must be objects in the proposition, and hence they cannot be variables in the proposition.


The only way to attempt to get around this absurdity is to fudge the issue and pretend that no formula of the formal system is allowed to be a “number-theoretic relation”. Furthermore, since any formal system may be chosen as the subject of Gödel’s proof, that would mean that no formula of any formal system is a “number-theoretic relation”. And that would mean that “number-theoretic relations” cannot ever be expressions that belong to a well-defined formal system - so that would mean that they must be informal things that cannot ever belong to a fully defined system. Welcome to the land of mathematical absurdities.


See also the page The Platonist response to the flaw in Gödel’s proof. The paper The Fundamental Flaw in Gödel’s Proof of the Incompleteness Theorem PDF examines Gödel’s Proposition V in more detail.

section divider


section divider



Diverse opinions and criticisms are welcome, but messages that are frivolous, irrelevant or devoid of logical basis will be blocked. Difficulties in understanding the site content are usually best addressed by contacting me by e-mail. Note: you will be asked to provide an e-mail address - any address will do, it does not require verification. Your e-mail will only be used to notify you of replies to your comments - it will never be used for any other purpose and will not be displayed. If you cannot see any comments below, see Why isn’t the comment box loading?.

section divider

The Lighter Side


Paper on the diagonal proof

There is now a paper that deals with the matter of language and the diagonal proof, see On Considerations of Language in the Diagonal Proof.

section divider

Other recently added pages

The Myths of Platonism


Goodman’s Paradox


The Platonist Rod paradox


The Balls in the Urn Paradox


section divider

Lebesgue Measure

There is now a new page on a contradiction in Lebesgue measure theory.

section divider

Easy Footnotes

I found that making, adding or deleting footnotes in the traditional manner proved to be a major pain. So I developed a different system for footnotes which makes inserting or changing footnotes a doddle. You can check it out at Easy Footnotes for Web Pages (Accessibility friendly).

section divider

O’Connor’s “computer checked” proof

I have now added a new section to my paper on Russell O’Connor’s claim of a computer verified incompleteness proof. This shows that the flaw in the proof arises from a reliance on definitions that include unacceptable assumptions - assumptions that are not actually checked by the computer code. See also the new page Representability.

Previous Blog Posts

Moderate Platonism

Descartes’ Platonism

The duplicity of Mark Chu-Carroll

A John Searle Inanity

Man versus Machine

Fake News and Fake Mathematics

Ned Block’s Blockhead

Are we alone in the Universe?

Good Math, Bad Math?

Bishops Dancing with Pixies?

Artificial Intelligence

Cranks and Crackpots

The Chinese Room


For convenience, there are now two pages on this site with links to various material relating to Gödel and the Incompleteness Theorem


– a page with general links:

Gödel Links


– and a page relating specifically to the Gödel mind-machine debate:

Gödel, Minds, and Machines

Printer Friendly

All pages on this website are printer friendly, and will print the main content in a convenient format. Note that the margins are set by your browser print settings.

Note: for some browsers JavaScript must be enabled for this to operate correctly.


Comments on this site are welcome, please see the comment section.


Please note that this web site, like any other is a collection of various statements. Not all of this web site is intended to be factual. Some of it is personal opinion or interpretation.


If you prefer to ask me directly about the material on this site, please send me an e-mail with your query, and I will attempt to reply promptly.


Feedback about site design would also be appreciated so that I can improve the site.

Copyright © James R Meyer 2012 - 2018