/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14960612
>You can't prove an axiom, because that would require other axioms, and to prove those other axioms would require more axioms, can you see how this could get out of hand?
Thank you for telling me. This problem with recursion is interesting. It also seems like axiom could be malformed in a way that makes problems or paradoxes. Is there an easy way to tell if axiom is nonsense?

>This axiom is false

Seems like nonsense but it might be nonsense because my comprehension is low currently.

I am going to keep reading this book until it completes. I do not have a lot of read time today because I have to do a lot of boring tasks unrelated to books or computers, but should have a big amount on the weekend.

>>14959791
It is a book. It doesn't have to have applications. Book's job is amusement.