Friendly challenge for mathematicians regarding axioms, consistency and completeness...

[AlexandrosTsolis]

Hi all,

This is a friendly challenge for mathematicians in the forum, please think before you reply,
...it also is complementary to my other post, "what's the story with physics?"


Why say that the following phrase is nonsense?

“The consistency of axioms cannot be proved within their own system.” (<--google it)

Because: A system which has axioms for itself, in order for the system to call them axioms for itself, the system has to have a consistent behavior around those axioms and so when it behaves inconsistently with regard to those axioms, the inconsistency between those axioms and the system’s behavior the system can prove to itself.

If what is written above is false, then when a system behaves inconsistently with regard to some axioms it has for itself, that inconsistency it cannot prove to itself, and it keeps behaving inconsistently with regard to those axioms…but…

if the system keeps behaving inconsistently with regard to some axioms and cannot prove to itself that it does so with regard to those axioms, then it doesn’t seem to me it can consistently keep regarding them as axioms for the system, and then something else replaces them, and that something else is what the system calls axioms for itself.



But what do I mean by all the above exactly?

Mathematicians…

in order to remain alive, you have to keep breathing...and this is an axiom for your system...that you can prove consistently throughout your entire life…

so breathe idiots…breathe…



1. When one counts phrases with numbers mathematicians…

When one counts phrases with numbers mathematicians, one doesn’t end up with a phrase that makes sense for humans at any time in their history up to now, because if you mathematicians REALLY think otherwise…

When one counts phrases with numbers mathematicians, one can end up with a phrase that makes sense for humans at some time in their history up to now, but if you mathematicians think this REALLY makes sense to you…

If in the end mathematicians, when one counts phrases with numbers mathematicians, one can end up with a phrase that makes sense for humans at some time in their history up to now, then it doesn’t seem to me that all humans up to now throughout their history made sense by talking to one another honestly and not only by counting one another with numbers without any regard to honesty ever spoken…does it seem to you mathematicians?



2. When numbers happen before words happen, mathematicians, and the rest ones…

When numbers happen before words happen, words don’t make sense after numbers happen, or else

When numbers happen before words happen, words can make sense after numbers happen, but…

If in the end when numbers happen before words happen, words can make sense after numbers happen, then it doesn’t seem to me now what numbers where counting before, that is worth saying…does it seem to you?



3. When numbers happen after words happen, all…

When numbers happen after words happen, words make sense before numbers happen, or else

When numbers happen after words happen, words don’t make sense before numbers happen, but…

If in the end when numbers happen after words happen, words don’t make sense before numbers happen, then it doesn’t seem to me now that numbers make sense to happen after those specific words…does it seem to you?

 

[JoeMoma]

What exactly in one sentence is your challenge?

I would agree that math and science sometimes advances with the challenging of axioms. Hyperbolic geometry for example.

 

[AlexandrosTsolis]

What exactly in one sentence is your challenge?

I would agree that math and science sometimes advances with the challenging of axioms. Hyperbolic geometry for example.

This time try to not agree with what you didn't read and read, player...then you can come back to me, if you have something to say, if you don't, is it really sensible of you to keep one spending time and effort replying to me?

What is it so hard for such a clever player such as you to understand?


Why say that the following phrase is nonsense?

“The consistency of axioms cannot be proved within their own system.” (<--google it)

Because: A system which has axioms for itself, in order for the system to call them axioms for itself, the system has to have a consistent behavior around those axioms and so when it behaves inconsistently with regard to those axioms, the inconsistency between those axioms and the system’s behavior the system can prove to itself.

If what is written above is false, then when a system behaves inconsistently with regard to some axioms it has for itself, that inconsistency it cannot prove to itself, and it keeps behaving inconsistently with regard to those axioms…but…

if the system keeps behaving inconsistently with regard to some axioms and cannot prove to itself that it does so with regard to those axioms, then it doesn’t seem to me it can consistently keep regarding them as axioms for the system, and then something else replaces them, and that something else is what the system calls axioms for itself.



But what do I mean by all the above exactly?

Mathematicians…

in order to remain alive, you have to keep breathing...and this is an axiom for your system...that you can prove consistently throughout your entire life…

so breathe idiots…breathe…



1. When one counts phrases with numbers mathematicians…

When one counts phrases with numbers mathematicians, one doesn’t end up with a phrase that makes sense for humans at any time in their history up to now, because if you mathematicians REALLY think otherwise…

When one counts phrases with numbers mathematicians, one can end up with a phrase that makes sense for humans at some time in their history up to now, but if you mathematicians think this REALLY makes sense to you…

If in the end mathematicians, when one counts phrases with numbers mathematicians, one can end up with a phrase that makes sense for humans at some time in their history up to now, then it doesn’t seem to me that all humans up to now throughout their history made sense by talking to one another honestly and not only by counting one another with numbers without any regard to honesty ever spoken…does it seem to you mathematicians?



2. When numbers happen before words happen, mathematicians, and the rest ones…

When numbers happen before words happen, words don’t make sense after numbers happen, or else

When numbers happen before words happen, words can make sense after numbers happen, but…

If in the end when numbers happen before words happen, words can make sense after numbers happen, then it doesn’t seem to me now what numbers where counting before, that is worth saying…does it seem to you?



3. When numbers happen after words happen, all…

When numbers happen after words happen, words make sense before numbers happen, or else

When numbers happen after words happen, words don’t make sense before numbers happen, but…

If in the end when numbers happen after words happen, words don’t make sense before numbers happen, then it doesn’t seem to me now that numbers make sense to happen after those specific words…does it seem to you?

 

[JoeMoma]

What is it so hard for such a clever player such as you to understand?

Your gibberish. And you did not present a challenge in your opening post.

 

[rupol2000]

I think it's nonsense. It's like saying that logical conclusions cannot be without premises, a self-evident thing. It seems that Godel did not understand logic well.

 

[AlexandrosTsolis]

Your gibberish. And you did not present a challenge in your opening post.

read this color player...

This time try to not agree with what you didn't read and read, player...then you can come back to me, if you have something to say, if you don't, is it really sensible of you to keep one spending time and effort replying to me?

What is it so hard for such a clever player such as you to understand?

 

[AlexandrosTsolis]

I think it's nonsense. It's like saying that logical conclusions cannot be without premises, a self-evident thing. It seems that Godel did not understand logic well.

Yes but what do you think mathematicians think?

Do you think they think that Godel did not understand logic well?

Because if they thought that now, that would be really funny wouldn't it, after they thought Godel understood logic well...and...

...they also understood logic well...no?

 

[JoeMoma]

read this color player...

This time try to not agree with what you didn't read and read, player...then you can come back to me, if you have something to say, if you don't, is it really sensible of you to keep one spending time and effort replying to me?

What is it so hard for such a clever player such as you to understand?

I read enough to know that you did not present a "Friendly Challenge" in your opening post as the title of your thread implies. Can you state in one short sentence what that "Friendly Challenge" is?

 

[AlexandrosTsolis]

I read enough to know that you did not present a "Friendly Challenge" in your opening post as the title of your thread implies. Can you state in one short sentence what that "Friendly Challenge" is?

Why say that the following phrase is nonsense?

“The consistency of axioms cannot be proved within their own system.” (<--google it)

what is it that you didn't read initially player, why are you here replying if you are not reading idiot?!

 

[AlexandrosTsolis]

Why say that the following phrase is nonsense?

“The consistency of axioms cannot be proved within their own system.” (<--google it)

Because: A system which has axioms for itself, in order for the system to call them axioms for itself, the system has to have a consistent behavior around those axioms and so when it behaves inconsistently with regard to those axioms, the inconsistency between those axioms and the system’s behavior the system can prove to itself.

If what is written above is false, then when a system behaves inconsistently with regard to some axioms it has for itself, that inconsistency it cannot prove to itself, and it keeps behaving inconsistently with regard to those axioms…but…

if the system keeps behaving inconsistently with regard to some axioms and cannot prove to itself that it does so with regard to those axioms, then it doesn’t seem to me it can consistently keep regarding them as axioms for the system, and then something else replaces them, and that something else is what the system calls axioms for itself.



But what do I mean by all the above exactly?

Mathematicians…

in order to remain alive, you have to keep breathing...and this is an axiom for your system...that you can prove consistently throughout your entire life…

so breathe idiots…breathe…



1. When one counts phrases with numbers mathematicians…

When one counts phrases with numbers mathematicians, one doesn’t end up with a phrase that makes sense for humans at any time in their history up to now, because if you mathematicians REALLY think otherwise…

When one counts phrases with numbers mathematicians, one can end up with a phrase that makes sense for humans at some time in their history up to now, but if you mathematicians think this REALLY makes sense to you…

If in the end mathematicians, when one counts phrases with numbers mathematicians, one can end up with a phrase that makes sense for humans at some time in their history up to now, then it doesn’t seem to me that all humans up to now throughout their history made sense by talking to one another honestly and not only by counting one another with numbers without any regard to honesty ever spoken…does it seem to you mathematicians?



2. When numbers happen before words happen, mathematicians, and the rest ones…

When numbers happen before words happen, words don’t make sense after numbers happen, or else

When numbers happen before words happen, words can make sense after numbers happen, but…

If in the end when numbers happen before words happen, words can make sense after numbers happen, then it doesn’t seem to me now what numbers where counting before, that is worth saying…does it seem to you?



3. When numbers happen after words happen, all…

When numbers happen after words happen, words make sense before numbers happen, or else

When numbers happen after words happen, words don’t make sense before numbers happen, but…

If in the end when numbers happen after words happen, words don’t make sense before numbers happen, then it doesn’t seem to me now that numbers make sense to happen after those specific words…does it seem to you?