arithmetic statement मीनिंग इन हिंदी

उदाहरण वाक्य

1. Additional graffiti includes the early 1970s arithmetic statement:
2. Could ZFC be consistent but " false " in the sense that it proves arithmetic statements that are false about the standard integers?
3. Yet, Springer's Egyptian multiplication encyclopedia entry did not specify critical aliquot part operational details that are required to translate the information into modern arithmetic statements.
4. Conclusion : To understand ancient Egyptian multiplication and division, Ahmes'2 / n table aliquot part arithmetic operational steps must be translated into modern arithmetic statements.
5. You have given a false arithmetic statement and a geometric object, you haven't actually given us anything to solve .-- talk ) 21 : 29, 26 August 2009 ( UTC)
6. Note that " completeness " has a different meaning here than it does in the context of G�del's first incompleteness theorem, which states that no " recursive ", " consistent " set of non-logical axioms \ Sigma \, of the Theory of Arithmetic is " complete ", in the sense that there will always exist an arithmetic statement \ phi \, such that neither \ phi \, nor \ lnot \ phi \, can be proved from the given set of axioms.
7. G�del's first incompleteness theorem showed that no recursive extension of " Principia " could be both consistent and complete for arithmetic statements . ( As mentioned above, Principia itself was already known to be incomplete for some non-arithmetic statements . ) According to the theorem, within every sufficiently powerful recursive logical system ( such as " Principia " ), there exists a statement " G " that essentially reads, " The statement " G " cannot be proved . " Such a statement is a sort of Catch-22 : if " G " is provable, then it is false, and the system is therefore inconsistent; and if " G " is not provable, then it is true, and the system is therefore incomplete.
8. G�del's first incompleteness theorem showed that no recursive extension of " Principia " could be both consistent and complete for arithmetic statements . ( As mentioned above, Principia itself was already known to be incomplete for some non-arithmetic statements . ) According to the theorem, within every sufficiently powerful recursive logical system ( such as " Principia " ), there exists a statement " G " that essentially reads, " The statement " G " cannot be proved . " Such a statement is a sort of Catch-22 : if " G " is provable, then it is false, and the system is therefore inconsistent; and if " G " is not provable, then it is true, and the system is therefore incomplete.