|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2005 8:03 pm
well you learn soemthing new everyday..i toghut numbers were teh same everywhere....like 2+2 always equaled 4....even if the symbols were a lil different...hm. nvm, i know i cant win in an arguement with you. xd ur as bad as my bro. anyways! i sleep now, so i lose for the night. MWHAHA! twisted sweatdrop night.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2005 8:23 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2005 8:23 pm
11001001 10100000 01101100 01101111 11110011 01100101 00100001
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2005 9:03 pm
All mathematical axioms (such as the sum of all the angles of two linear, intersecting lines must equal 2pi radians) are ultimately based upon simple assumptions such as 1+1=2. These assumptions appear to be true, but they are not necessarily so. Godel shows that these assumptions does not necessarily need to be the same for all mathematical systems. Informally, Godel's incompleteness theorem states that all consistent axiomatic formulations of number theory include undecidable propositions. This is sometimes called Godel's first incompleteness theorem, and answers in the negative Hilbert's problem asking whether mathematics is "complete" (in the sense that every statement in the language of number theory can be either proved or disproved). Formally, Godel's theorem states, "To every w-consistent recursive class k of formulas, there correspond recursive class-signs r such that neither (v Gen r) nor Neg(v Gen r) belongs to Flg(k), where v is the free variable of r." A statement sometimes known as Godel's second incompleteness theorem states that if number theory is consistent, then a proof of this fact does not exist using the methods of first-order predicate calculus. Stated more colloquially, any formal system that is interesting enough to formulate its own consistency can prove its own consistency iff it is inconsistent.
Essentially this means that no single mathematical system can be complete, therefore multiple mathematical systems, with varying basic, unprovable assumptions, must exist. Because multiple mathematical systems with different rules must exist, then mathematics can never be universal. From a historical perspective different civilizations did have different symbols for the same conceptual numbers, but some mathematical rules, especially those involving multiplication and division, varied.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2005 11:00 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2005 11:01 pm
I lose for the last time tonight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2005 11:03 pm
I lose witth an open mind
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2005 4:25 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:47 pm
I lose for New and mutant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 10:59 am
I lose! For me!
Oh, hello! I don't belive we've met. ^.^ I"m Geba!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2005 6:05 pm
i am the loser! weeeee! blaugh
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2005 6:06 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2005 6:07 pm
yeah, i think so. kinda weird but then again we are in the loser guild
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2005 6:08 pm
Ah Ha you fell into my trap I lose.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2005 6:09 pm
oh yeah, just wait till consus gets back, then he'll show you
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
