The difference is that if something is proven mathematically it’s 100% certain and will not change. In other sciences you may be taught things that later turn out to be flat out wrong.
Bingo, I was taught in genetics class in the 1990s that RNA played a role but DNA was the primary driver and now my understanding is the current consensus is RNA is the primary driver.
The difference is that if something is proven mathematically it’s 100% certain and will not change. In other sciences you may be taught things that later turn out to be flat out wrong.
Bingo, I was taught in genetics class in the 1990s that RNA played a role but DNA was the primary driver and now my understanding is the current consensus is RNA is the primary driver.
When I was growing up, Minnie was the primary Driver, but now the consensus says that it’s Adam.
Not if it’s later shown that your set of axioms lead to a contradiction.
In that case have fun re-proofing everything with new axioms.
Not here to start shit, genuinely curious what people think about Gödel’s incompleteness theorems in relation to us being able to “know” math
Not a mathematician but the way I understand it, is that it merely shows that there are unprovable problems, not that nothing can be proven.
Sounds hella sus now that you mention it 🤔