I hope you realize how absurd you&#x27;re being. If you asked me to explain what it means for a set to be &quot;Henkin&quot; I&#x27;d probably tell you to go read a logic book because it&#x27;s way too hard for me to explain (and ensure you understand) the intricacies of a completeness proof -- a proof much simpler than Godel&#x27;s, for that matter.<p>Similarly, the study of aesthetics is very rich and difficult. It&#x27;s impossible to distill 2 or 3 bullet points from Hume&#x27;s paper, much how it&#x27;s impossible to distill 2 or 3 bullet points from this one: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cs.nmsu.edu&#x2F;historical-projects&#x2F;Projects&#x2F;completeness.pdf" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cs.nmsu.edu&#x2F;historical-projects&#x2F;Projects&#x2F;complete...</a> -- even I know and thoroughly understand both topics.