Sorry I Did Not Notice That You Want Me To Do 2x2=4 In Peano Arithmetic
Stop shouting. :grumpy:OK STEPS 1 AND 2 ,BY WHAT LAW YOU GET 3
ALSO EXPLAIN <identity of indiscemibles>
If you're challenging others to write explicit and complete formal proofs from scratch (i.e. without invoking known theory) -- the least you could do is to fully and accurately present what it is you want others to prove.O.K With such a small proof WHAT ABOUT THE FOLLOWING PROOF??
for all x and for all y(x>=0 and y>=0 -------> ( sqroot(xy)=sqroot(x).sqroot(y) ))
CAN YOU DO IT STEP WISE??????
If for example the real Nos system is not consistent then nature itself is not consistent
No, it hasn't. Newton's laws are not mathematical theorems. They are scientific theories. Mathematic theorems and scientific theories are quite different things.If the time is the same with the time calculated by your friend then nature has |"proved" the Newtonian theorem in mechanics,which your friend used to find out the time.
No, it hasn't. Newton's laws are not mathematical theorems. They are scientific theories. Mathematic theorems and scientific theories are quite different things.
Gathering evidence does not prove a scientific theory to be true. The evidence instead shows that the theory is consistent with reality to within experimental error, and only in the case of the evidence at hand. Experimental evidence provides confirmation. It does not provide proof. On the other hand, one crummy piece of well-validated conflicting evidence makes a scientific theory fall apart. In the case of Newton's theory of gravitation, that one crummy piece of conflicting evidence is the precession of Mercury. Newton's laws predict a different value for the precession of Mercury than observed. Those observations falsify Newton's laws.