I am struggling to understand the basics of logic. I don't understand the following.
I know that in propositional logic the statement "A and (not B)" is true under certain interpretations of the symbols and false under others. It is also unprovable since it is not a tautology.
This seems to me to be analogous to true unprovable statements of number theory. These are also true only in some models becasue if they were true in all models they would be provable by the completeness theorem.
Why don't we consider propositional logic incomplete, then?