  Goedel's explicit thesis was that his undecidable formula GUS is a
well-formed, well-defined formal sentence in any formalisation of Intuitive
Arithmetic IA in which the axioms and rules of inference are recursively
definable. His implicit thesis was that GUS is not formally inconsistent in any
such system.
  I argue in a constructive, intuitionistically unobjectionable, and
recursively definable formalisation PP of IA that GUS is a well-formed formula
but an ill-defined formal sentence reflecting the "Liar" paradox in PP.
  Further, introducing "formal truth" and "provability" values to selected
propositions of IA through PP leads to the collapse of Lucas' Goedelian
argument.
