Is it possible that the Riemann's hypothesis is just impossible

Completeness theorem

>>8816575
In

>>8816575
Is it always possible to prove something is impossible to prove?

>>8816589
Proving shit is not necessarily possible in general, no matter if it is the claim itself or that the claim is impossible to prove.

>>8816592
Hmm, so I guess God could exist after all.

Really makes me think.

>>8816597
:DDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

>>8816572
the sum of two natural numbers is a natural number
as true as that is, good luck proving it without just defining it to be true

>>8816607
t. brainlet

File: 1486950043322.jpg (163KB, 800x670px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 800x670px

>>8816617
you have 15 minutes to respond to this post with a proof or you are the brainlet

>>8816597
God is the universe.

>>8816572
If it's impossible to prove, it doesn't have a truth value in the current system. Things that are true, are provable, things that are false, are disprovable.

>>8816617
>>8816623
BTFO

>>8816623
for any natural number n, n+1 is also natural number is sufficient.

>>8816664
that's not a proof

Wrong. The Riemann Zeta is the God functional that gives the electromagnetic field its patterns

>>8816572
>Can something true, in general, be impossible to prove?
Yes, one example is the existence of god. Anyone with half a brain understands why he must exist, it's just impossible to prove.

>>8816671
Yeah but which god is the real one?
Oh wait, let me guess, it's the one you believe in?

>>8816607
A sum of ones is always evenly divisible by one.

A natural number is just a sum of ones.

What more proof do you need?

>>8816607
n+m=n+S(m-1)=S(n)+m-1=...=S^m(n)+0=S^m(n)
which is a natural number.

>>8816668
Let natural numbers be the subset of any inductive set. For any natural number n, n+1 is a natural number by the definition of inductive set. If there is some m such that n+m is a natural number, then n+(m+1)=(n+m)+1 is also a natural number. Thus for any natural number n if m is in some inductive set, n+m is a natural numbers and therefore for any natural number n and m, n+m is again a natural number.

>>8816684
inb4 define inductive set

>>8816572
Gödel's incompleteness theorem, in pleb terms, if you got a formal system that is capable of performing basic arithmetic, there are things that are unprovable in that system. This does not mean those systems are inconsistent, because if you got an inconsistent sytem you can prove anything.

Yes, in fact most statements about reals do not have proofs.

>>8816575
Doesn't that just say that a given set of axioms cannot be used to prove everything? Not that some things are true but unprovable? I don't fully get Gödel's theorem so happy to be corrected

>>8816735
If you got a set of axioms complex enough to perform basic arithmetic, you can create a meta-theorem, one that is not proveable in your system but still stated purely in your set of axioms. Also note that this does not mean your system is somehow inconsistent, because if it was you could prove anything. I see the same arise when you question the meaning to life, you would have to somehow transcend our world to answer that.