I want to record, in text writing here, that I would now view the problems of (mathematical) logic differently, although I do not have a good theory to be working on (and hoping to complete and publish it in my lifetime!). In particular, one simple idea that came to me was that (in normal human language words and wording) of simply adding a supplementary axiom to a first presented set of axioms, with the additional axiom saying "The list of axioms specified before this axiom forms a consistent set of axioms, and furthermore, with this axiom also included in the complete set of axioms the whole set of axioms remains consistent." It is easy to note that the "additional axiom" is not expressed in conventional logical symbols and notation, but rather simply in words of human language communication. (English, rather than French or another language is not essential here.) Goedel incompleteness derived from the insufficiency of the system of Russell and Whitehead to affirm its own consistency. But it is natural for whoever accepts for use a set of axioms to also presume and/or accept the concept of the consistency of those axioms (for example the consistency of the axioms of Euclidean Geometry). //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Another notable concept, in relation to the issue of "completeness" for a system of logic, is that of "axioms of infinity" in relation to the study of issues of "set theory". If all of the possible axioms of infinity have not already (however that might be) be included in the axiomatic foundations of the system then it seems fairly clear that an axiom specifying the existence, for example, of a larger ordinal number might be added to the axioms of the system with enlargement. (This relates to the "Burali-Forti paradox".) And there can be incompleteness through situations where we seem to have options that do not affect "number theory" (for example) but allow us either to believe or to disbelieve in the validity of the "Axiom of Choice".