Is this a good way to state Godel's Incompleteness Theorem?

Question

there exist recursive enumerable subset of natural numbers that is not recursive.

Answer 1

Hi. The wording seem a bit convoluted. Try here. : http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GoedelsIncompletenessTheorem.html "To every omega-consistent recursive class kappa of formulas, there correspond recursive class-signs r such that neither (v Gen r) nor Neg(v Gen r) belongs to Flg(kappa), where v is the free variable of r"