What's the most important postulate in mathematics that has no proof?
1+1=2
x=x (1)
>>8862128
at least there is this
>>8862137
Godel BTFO that shit.
abc conjecture
Navie stokes. Everything else is autistic jerk off.
>>8862126
>does an odd perfect number exist
Will unlock the secrets of the universe and make all the panties around you automatically wet once you solve it.
>>8862160
Navier-Stokes is a meme
Numerical methods are all you'll ever need
>>8862151
>He hasn't even mastered Hodge Theaters
>>8862176
>He doesn't know that mathematicians are mostly interested in PDEs to see the path to their solutions than the solutions themselves.
I think the Riemann hypothesis. There are surprisingly many results that follow from it and most people assume it is probably going to turn out true, yet no one really knows.
>>8862126
P = NP
Consistency of ZFC
>>8862786
This
>>8862786
Exactly this.
/thread
>>8862137
You have to be retarded to believe a nonsense garbage text mess of symbols proves "1+1=2"
1+1=2 cant be proven by text and symbols. It can be proven with experience and observation.
>>8862168
>Will unlock the secrets of the universe and make all the panties around you automatically wet once you solve it.
I remember when I was a kid I heard about this through numberphile and now in analytic number theory perfect numbers were discussed briefly and I can't stop thinking about them.
Why are they so hard to grasp? Why can't I characterize the properties of odd perfect numbers other than the trivial ones (must be odd, must be perfect). It makes me angry.
>>8864479
that pic is no proof
but its something you could show an alien to explain why 1+1=2
>>8862126
>postulate
>that has no proof
That's the definition of a postulate. That's what postulating means.
>>8864522
What do some of those symbols mean? I'm not familiar with a lot of the notation
that [math]0\neq 1[/math]
>>8862146
this statement is false
>>8864788
It's the notation used on Russel's principia mathematica, I think wikipedia has it in a list somewhere.