Just a gradient, math is not logically consistent either, nor are there any formal languages which are (again, one might claim, even provably so) -- besides maybe a very limited set of languages that have so many constraints as to be irrelevant (e.g. the logic required for a finite PD game might be self-consistent) -- regardless, any system of any real use isn’t so I don’t see much point in differentiating (as mentioned even in the post)
Languages used in daily life indeed have no formal, logically consistent, definitions, nor will they likely ever have one.
Pure math, if you count it, might have this, depending on how sparse and ‘elegant’ the minimal universal axioms turn out to be.
What do you consider the definition of a ‘language’ for the purposes of this post?
Just a gradient, math is not logically consistent either, nor are there any formal languages which are (again, one might claim, even provably so) -- besides maybe a very limited set of languages that have so many constraints as to be irrelevant (e.g. the logic required for a finite PD game might be self-consistent) -- regardless, any system of any real use isn’t so I don’t see much point in differentiating (as mentioned even in the post)
Maths is incomplete. Inconsistency isn’t proven.
Is this wrong?