On Sunday, 2 March 2014 00:43:02 UTC+2, Dan Christensen wrote:
> You have been unable to derive even the most elementary result from number theory. What kind of "axioms" are they?
Did you perhaps mean that because I am not playing your silly games, that your assertions must be true? :-)
> > Axioms don't need proofs. In fact, they usually can't be proved.
> The statement, for all natural numbers n, n=/=n+1, is not an axiom (in Peano or in your own system).
It is *very much an axiom" by definition of the *natural numbers*.
Look you idiot, n = n + 1 for all n => 1 is how the natural numbers are constructed. THERE IS NO NEED FOR PROOF. What an imbecile.
>It is a theorem, the proof of which seems to completely elude you and your system of "axioms."
>I pick it because it is perhaps the simplest inductive proof in number theory.
You picked it because you are a bi-product of academic stupidity and ignorance.
> I have the proof as a worked example in the tutorial than comes with my proof software (see Example 13).
I have looked at your "proofs". These remind me of the idiot Bertrand Russell and his smokey ideas. Your "proofs" look like computer algorithms. Not that I have anything against computer algorithms or algorithms in general, after all I used to work as a software developer for many years. The fact that I earned between $400-$600 (USD) per hour, means I was at the top of my field. Most of your ignorant mathematics professors would never have survived in the cut-throat real world because they don't have what it takes in intellectual resourcefulness. Give the monkeys theorems and rules, and they are like 2-year olds in a mudpen.