Alright then, let's define some terms.
For a statement to count as innuendo, it has to imply something sexy, while at the same time not being so overt as to exclude the possibility of a non-sexual interpretation. For example:
Alfador wrote:I have been known to pull some boners in my day.
Alfador wrote:I'm aroused!!...But I can't prove it with these axioms.
On the other hand, this one doesn't have much in the way of non-sexual interpretations, since the one definition that's not about emotion and/or sex is the kind of thing that would be easy to prove.
http://www.answers.com/topic/aroused wrote:Meaning #1: aroused to action
Meaning #2: emotionally aroused
Synonyms: stimulated, stirred, stirred up
Meaning #3: brought to a state of great tension
Synonym: wound up
Meaning #4: feeling great sexual desire
Synonyms: horny, randy, ruttish, turned on
Meaning #5: keenly excited (especially sexually) or indicating excitement
Synonyms: ablaze, aflame, turned on
Meaning #6: of persons; excessively affected by emotion
Synonyms: emotional, excited, worked up
Alfador wrote:Ooh baby, let me empty everything from between your brackets.
Another good example, because it implies the use of the term "brackets" as a euphemism for some anatomical feature.
Alfador wrote:Baby, be true to me, or be false, just don't be unprovable!
This passes the innuendo criterion, on the basis of your own statements about
reluctance, or the whole pinocchio thing. My problem is that it doesn't relate closely enough to the Incompleteness Theorem. Problems with individual statements being unprovable are not unique to Goedel's work.
I'd be more willing to accept something about an entire axiomatic system.
Hello!
Praise be to Athè, and Hob, Her living vessel.
2<3For I have crescent pies to bake
And smiles to throw before I wake
That's not what I meant!