>
>That's not what Goedel showed, and his theorem has no relevance to law or
>political or legal philosophy or practice. What he showed was that
>arithmetic is incomplete, i.e., that in any formal system powerful enough
>to
>express arithmetic, there is at least one true proposition not provable
>within that system. jks
>
> And if arithmetic is incomplete, law can be complete?
Law is not a formal language. You cannot state arithmetic in any legal vocabulary. Law does not pretend to have theorems. And arithemetic (or any formal language) does not prescribe rules for social conduct. It's a total confusion, whatever the overeducated idiots Ian cited may write in their papers. I am actually expert in both law and mathematical logic, and take it from me, Goedel's theorem has no relevance to the question at hand.
jks
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.