I hope you realize how absurd you're being. If you asked me to explain what it means for a set to be "Henkin" I'd probably tell you to go read a logic book beca

I hope you realize how absurd you're being. If you asked me to explain what it means for a set to be "Henkin" I'd probably tell you to go read a logic book because it's way too hard for me to explain (and ensure you understand) the intricacies of a completeness proof -- a proof much simpler than Godel's, for that matter. Similarly, the study of aesthetics is very rich and difficult. It's impossible to distill 2 or 3 bullet points from Hume's paper, much how it's impossible to distill 2 or 3 bullet points from this one: http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/historical-projects/Projects/completeness.pdf http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/historical-projects/Projects/complete... -- even I know and thoroughly understand both topics.