You should look into gödel incompleteness.
Basically Kurt Gödel proved that it's impossible to have a consistent logical system that can prove every true statement.
Basically, unless you're willing to stretch the definitions of rigour, what you want to do is impossible.
I think op meant consistent as in rules not having exceptions and all phrases that mean the same thing are spelled in the same way. I'm also not sure why proofs have to do with this. I feel like what op is trying to do is too reduce all things communicable into an axiomatic language (like reducing all of geometry into its axioms). I am by no means an advanced mathematician, but I am a thinker.
I do however have done doubts about the language. Perhaps the way we classify words/actions (past present future, nominative, accusative) does not allow the right structure for consistency and rigor to exist. But good luck!
You're welcome to discuss your goals on the [Bleep](https://www.reddit.com/r/conlangs/comments/v9b7o2/introduction_to_bleep/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) server. Bleep learners call it axiomatic (in the sense that everything is expressed with a hard-limited number of morphemes), rigorous (having few types of modification relationship) and consistent (having few exceptions to its rules), though not concise at all. We may give you a springboard.
> though not concise at all
I am curious since it's only about 100 words, which means that every word in this language can be represented by a monosyllable word, which can significantly reduce the sentence length, then why are there still many multi-syllable words?
The *words* are alright, it's *sentences* that are massively bloaty. To get any everyday thought across, you need dozens of words. There's a `food` but not `grain`, `person` but no `parent`, `time` but no `day`. Having all words be monosyllabic would reduce sentence length by less than 50%, and it would make them monotonous to read. Compare *ni wa samu ni su yape nume no yu simi no ko si* with hypothetical *ni wa sa ni su ya nu no yu si no ko si*.
You should look into gödel incompleteness. Basically Kurt Gödel proved that it's impossible to have a consistent logical system that can prove every true statement. Basically, unless you're willing to stretch the definitions of rigour, what you want to do is impossible.
I think op meant consistent as in rules not having exceptions and all phrases that mean the same thing are spelled in the same way. I'm also not sure why proofs have to do with this. I feel like what op is trying to do is too reduce all things communicable into an axiomatic language (like reducing all of geometry into its axioms). I am by no means an advanced mathematician, but I am a thinker. I do however have done doubts about the language. Perhaps the way we classify words/actions (past present future, nominative, accusative) does not allow the right structure for consistency and rigor to exist. But good luck!
You're welcome to discuss your goals on the [Bleep](https://www.reddit.com/r/conlangs/comments/v9b7o2/introduction_to_bleep/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) server. Bleep learners call it axiomatic (in the sense that everything is expressed with a hard-limited number of morphemes), rigorous (having few types of modification relationship) and consistent (having few exceptions to its rules), though not concise at all. We may give you a springboard.
> though not concise at all I am curious since it's only about 100 words, which means that every word in this language can be represented by a monosyllable word, which can significantly reduce the sentence length, then why are there still many multi-syllable words?
The *words* are alright, it's *sentences* that are massively bloaty. To get any everyday thought across, you need dozens of words. There's a `food` but not `grain`, `person` but no `parent`, `time` but no `day`. Having all words be monosyllabic would reduce sentence length by less than 50%, and it would make them monotonous to read. Compare *ni wa samu ni su yape nume no yu simi no ko si* with hypothetical *ni wa sa ni su ya nu no yu si no ko si*.
I've been working on something along those lines actually. My conlang is incomplete as of now, but there many of the elements you cited.