>An axiom is a theorem whose proof is inaccessible to the realm in which it is being used.
Prove this statement
>>17088850Not possible in this realm, but you are able to grab it from the higher realms. The closest you can get to proving it is imagining an inhabitant of that realm proving it. You could imagine barney proving it for example.
e.g. Barney might prove the parallel postulate true with the axioms of euclidean geometry (san parallel postulate) and prove it false with the axioms of hyperbolic geometryThis is because he is capable of performing reasoning steps past infinity, furthermore he doesn't even need to use that power since his logic system has it baked in so he could do that level of inference in finite steps.so instead of turnstile ... it's turnstile_B for Barny
>>17088850Define prove without the use of axioms since you're disputing their scope and meaning.
>>17088849some miggers dont even make this claim they just assume its true no matter what
>>17088849whats an example of an axiom
>>17088850Tarski already did.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27s_undefinability_theorem
