The argument of the paper (which I do not find compelling) seems to be that the sentence &quot;all even primes greater than 2 are divisible by 1001&quot; is &#x27;false&#x27; because &quot;the words prime, 2, divisible, and 1001&quot; are undefined.<p>(In the framework in which those words <i>aren&#x27;t</i> undefined, then sure, we can talk about whether that sentence is true or false and have an interesting discussion. In formal logic it&#x27;s definitely true. But that&#x27;s not the discussion the article is interested in, as far as I can tell.)<p>To which OP (and I, and I think most people..) would say: we accept that you&#x27;re being clever by declaring that &quot;outside of mathematics, these words are undefined&quot;. But calling a sentence with undefined terms &quot;false&quot; is absurd. Just call it &quot;meaningless&quot; until all the terms are defined.<p>Then you avoid making statements like &quot;&#x27;8+5=13&#x27; is false&quot;, which at first glance seems absurd, and at second glance seems like &quot;you&#x27;re saying things that are absurd to raise eyebrows instead of taking the easy alternative of saying things that are reasonable.&quot;