Is it fair to suggest that the fact a base's symbol which would exist in a higher base but is never truly reflected in the base itself is an example(see below) of incompleteness along the ideas of the theorems? My apologies as I'm mostly self-teaching in these areas and feel I've skipped a lot of interim understanding. I don't know logic notation yet so can't follow any raw work. My example would be as follows;
In binary, base 2, we only ever feature the numbers 0 and 1 in all our numerical representations. Despite the fact it's base 2 the numerical symbol of 2 itself never actually appears in this system as this is instead 10.
Is this an example of the theories of incompleteness? Have I just made a random naive or arbitrary correction or is this a fair conclusion of sorts, if even very simplistic? Thanks in advance.