. . .

–Does Wittgenstein’s conclusion on the omnipotence paradoxes put an end to them?—

Wittgenstein did not solve the problem that he sought to, Frege thru Kripke and the followers of Turing (meaning Chomsky) did.

(a) there exist no paradoxes, only the application of the rules of formal (deflationary) grammars to colloquial (suggestive) and inflationary (fictional) speech. In other words, there exist no paradoxes that are not simply incomplete sentences (transactions).

(b) wittgenstein and russell are correct: in the end, the investment in logic has been a waste of time. It’s nothing but tautology. Because we cannot use the logic of constant semantic relations (language) as we do the logic of constant positional relations (mathematics) to produce proofs. And the Intuitionists were correct: We cannot even do so in mathematics. So what the logics allow us to do is falsify statements, but not prove statements.