Concise rebuttal of incompleteness and undecidability

Because of Quine's paper: https://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html most
philosophers have been confused into believing that there is no such
thing as expressions of language that are {true on the basis of their
meaning}.
The unique contribution I have made to this is that the semantic meaning
of these expressions is always specified by other expressions. When we
can derive x or ~x by applying truth preserving operations to a set of
semantic meanings then this perfectly aligns with Wittgenstein's concise
critique of Gödel: https://www.liarparadox.org/Wittgenstein.pdf
Unless P or ~P has been proved in Russell's system P has no truth value
and thus cannot be a proposition according to the law of the excluded
middle.
As Richard keeps pointing out:
Sometimes this "proof" may require an infinite sequence of steps.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer