[acchow]

I stopped reading after the first paragraph, so I don't know what the rest of it says. You're right, he does agree with me. But he presents it with a shroud of mystery. I was turned off by his attempt at demonstrating a paradox (a la alarming title "contra Gödel et. al.) and using word play to trick the reader into believing there is one. But there is no paradox.

[stiff]

The claimed paradox is that this proof contradicts Goedels result "if mathematics is consistent, then it cannot infer its own consistency.". This is not what the paper is about anyway, though.