English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-03-07 16:22:14 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Sports Wrestling

STFU!!!!!!!!!!! MY SPELELINGS IS EXCOLLENT!! !!!!!!11111 11111!!!!!!!!!!1111 1111111!!!!!!!!!11111 1111

2007-03-07 16:29:18 · update #1

9 answers

bee cuz day jail us

2007-03-07 16:25:01 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

scythian is on the mark here: the constructive integers are carefully built utilising Peano's axioms, and a million+a million is the instant successor of a million, that's defined as 2. yet i could totally disagree with scythian's argument that Godel's Incompleteness Theorems are arguable; the only mathematicians that heavily experience this type are fringe logicians and maniacal set theorists. Godel's theorems unfold out alot of recent venues in arithmetic, and a few could say "freed" us from the just about specific rigorous loss of life to which we've been headed. extremely, Hilbert in 1900 asked "ought to somebody please set up a device of axioms that's thoroughly consistent and serves as a foundation for all math?", to which Godel replied, quite a few years later, "no, no it is trouble-free to; any axiomatic device describing the integers could have specific unprovable statements, and a few that are consistent while taken care of the two as real and as fake." To summarize: a million+a million is two by way of fact is defined that way, axiomatically, and subsequently won't have the capacity to be shown under the standard device of Peano's axioms. Steve EDIT - Above, as quickly as I say "unprovable statements", I propose statements taken care of as real, yet no longer proved as such (no longer which includes axioms). as quickly as I talk a pair of fact being "consistent while taken care of the two as real and as fake", I propose autonomous of the present axiomatic framework; that's corresponding to asserting the framework can not teach its very own consistency.

2016-12-14 13:32:41 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

Here's why-
"y dose evry1 on hear say dat i cant spel wen i kan>?!?!?!?!?!"

it should say

"Why DOES everyONE on HERE say THAT I can't SPELL WHEN I CAN"
I capitalized every word you misspelled

2007-03-08 04:23:34 · answer #3 · answered by tmapes 3 · 0 0

U spill Gr8

2007-03-07 16:40:53 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

wadz is u t0kin bt huh? i d0n under the stand u noe? u can go to www.dictionary.com ok..

2007-03-07 16:27:39 · answer #5 · answered by Mighty 2 · 0 0

its just hard for people to reaaaaaly understand what YOU are typingg....

If you are here looking for help... i guess its a better way to typed WELL....

2007-03-07 16:25:19 · answer #6 · answered by Ching y 3 · 0 0

Right. It's because you really can't spell properly.

2007-03-07 16:32:33 · answer #7 · answered by | e v e | 2 · 0 0

Huh?

2007-03-07 16:25:32 · answer #8 · answered by Jim F 5 · 0 0

Isn't it past your bedtime?

2007-03-07 16:25:34 · answer #9 · answered by kid_of_seph 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers