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⤋