Has anybody read each and every line of the english translation of the 1931 Godel's paper (from page 40 to the end)  ?

I tried once, but the notation is so far from the modern notation, and the setup is so strange (use of abitrary order formulas) that I found it quite difficult to follow.

If somebody managed to get to the end, I have the following question for him (her).

1. Is this proof purely syntactic?
2. Does it avoid the completeness theorem?

The proofs I read all use the completeness theorem at some point, so I wonder what a purely syntactic proof would be like, if it happens to exist.

Has anybody read each and every line of the English translation of the 1931 Gödel paper (from page 40 to the end)?

I tried once, but the notation is so far from the modern notation, and the setup is so strange (use of arbitrary-order formulas) that I found it quite difficult to follow.

If somebody managed to get to the end, I have the following question for him (her).

1. Is this proof purely syntactic?
2. Does it avoid the completeness theorem?

The proofs I read all use the completeness theorem at some point, so I wonder what a purely syntactic proof would be like, if it happens to exist.

Has anybody read each and every line of the english translation of the 1931 Godel paper (from page 40 to the end) ?

https://homepages.uc.edu/~martinj/History_of_Logic/Godel/Godel%20%E2%80%93%20On%20Formally%20Undecidable%20Propositions%20of%20Principia%20Mathematica%201931.pdf

I tried once, but the notation is so far from the modern notation, and the setup is so strange (use of abitrary order formulas) that I found it quite difficult to follow.

If somebody managed to get to the end, I have the following question for him (her) : is this proof purely syntactic ? does it avoid the completeness theorem ?

The proofs I read all use the completeness theorem at some point, so I wonder what a purely syntactic proof would be like, if it happens to exist.

Has anybody read each and every line of the english translation of the 1931 Godel's paper (from page 40 to the end) ?

I tried once, but the notation is so far from the modern notation, and the setup is so strange (use of abitrary order formulas) that I found it quite difficult to follow.

If somebody managed to get to the end, I have the following question for him (her).

1. Is this proof purely syntactic?
2. Does it avoid the completeness theorem?

The proofs I read all use the completeness theorem at some point, so I wonder what a purely syntactic proof would be like, if it happens to exist.

Has anybody read each and every line of the english translation of the 1931 Godel paper (from page 40 to the end) ?

https://homepages.uc.edu/~martinj/History_of_Logic/Godel/Godel%20%E2%80%93%20On%20Formally%20Undecidable%20Propositions%20of%20Principia%20Mathematica%201931.pdf

I tried once, but the notation is so far from the modern notation, and the setup is so strange (use of abitrary order formulas) that I found it quite difficult to follow.

If somebody managed to get to the end, I have the following question for him (her) : is this proof purely syntaxic ? does it avoid the completeness theorem ?

The proofs I read are all use the completeness theorem at some point, so I wonder what a purely syntaxic proof would be like, if it happens to exist.

Has anybody read each and every line of the english translation of the 1931 Godel paper (from page 40 to the end) ?

https://homepages.uc.edu/~martinj/History_of_Logic/Godel/Godel%20%E2%80%93%20On%20Formally%20Undecidable%20Propositions%20of%20Principia%20Mathematica%201931.pdf

I tried once, but the notation is so far from the modern notation, and the setup is so strange (use of abitrary order formulas) that I found it quite difficult to follow.

If somebody managed to get to the end, I have the following question for him (her) : is this proof purely syntactic ? does it avoid the completeness theorem ?

The proofs I read all use the completeness theorem at some point, so I wonder what a purely syntactic proof would be like, if it happens to exist.