See the following for more information:
"Recrafting Foundations of Mathematics"
The complete sentence is as follows: For example, that “theorems are provably computational enumerable” [Euclid approximately 300 BC] is a monster was only discovered after millennia when [Church 1934] used it to identify fundamental inconsistency in the foundations of mathematics that is resolved in this article."
See the article referenced in this discussion.
http://wab.uib.no/agora/tools/alws/collection-6-issue-1-arti...
powerful Wittgenstein proof that existence of I'mUnprovable
means that mathematical foundations are inconsistent.
Wittgenstein's more powerful version is much more
devastating.
As mentioned previously in this discussion, the following
article explains why I'mUnprovable must not and does not
exist in foundations:
"Recrafting Foundations of Mathematics"
> “Monster” is a term introduced in [Lakatos 1976] for a mathematical construct that introduces inconsistencies and paradoxes. Since the very beginning, monsters have been endemic in foundations. They can lurk long undiscovered. For example, that "theorems are provably computational enumerable" [Euclid approximately 300 BC] is a monster was only discovered after millennia when [Church 1934] used it to identify fundamental