completeness of arithmetic??

[anhinga_anhinga]

Recently Esenin-Volpin wrote a paper The Completeness of Classical Arithmetic.

The chances that this is correct are not very high, obviously. The discussion of Goedel incompleteness results is on page 43 (Volpin thinks something is wrong with them, and not with his proof). The core of the Volpin's proof is on pages 39-43, if anyone who likes syntactic logical manipulations wants to look at it.

Comments

[anhinga-anhinga.livejournal.com]

> Esenin-Volpin would be able to explain in simple language, why it is the case

To explain why they are wrong, or to explain why his result is correct?

[ygam.livejournal.com]

To explain, why they were all wrong.

Now, I remember reading a popular account of Lakatos's work on the history of Euler's theorem V-E+F=2 - it took several tries by brilliant mathematicians to get all the conditions right. So I find it possible, though extremely unlikely, that Goedel and everyone else are wrong - but there should be a simple way of showing it, and this paper isn't.

[anhinga-anhinga.livejournal.com]

Yes, I also did not find the discussion on page 43 convincing. That page tries to explain why they were all wrong, but, I think, falls short..

I am not sure, whether a completeness proof itself ought to be simple..