So, that mega black hole at the center of the galaxy... might be a worm hole

[ZetaX]

Anything is provable (or disprovable) with enough mathematics.

Prove 0=1 to me. And note that "mathematically" includes correct reasoning, i.e. fake proofs are not an option.

[Sirrobert]

Prove 0=1 to me. And note that "mathematically" includes correct reasoning, i.e. fake proofs are not an option.

He said prove OR DISPPROVE

So in your case, it's disprovable.

[ZetaX]

I would interpret it to be in brackets differently. But well, then prove (or disprove) to me the axiom of choice from the the standard axioms of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory.

[Sirrobert]

I would interpret it to be in brackets differently. But well, then prove (or disprove) to me the axiom of choice from the the standard axioms of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory.

Has that ever been proven/disproven?

Than google it

Has it never been proven/disproven?

Someone will, eventually

[ZetaX]

I would prefer if people would not act like they know things they do not (I would call that a prerequisite to do science properly).

The axiom of choice is proven to be neither provable nor disprovable by the axioms of ZF set theory, assuming its consistence (i.e. there is no contradiction in the usual definition of "mathematics"). In view of that you could say that my two requests are equivalent: proving 0=1 is equivalent to showing that the axiom of choice is true or showing it isn't.

Especially, it will very likely never be proven right and wrong (yes, "and", as if it's either both or none). You might also want to read up on Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem for something less explicit, but working for a more general setting than ZF set theory.

Edited May 19, 2014 by ZetaX

[Rakaydos]

If we consider a wormhole a link between two points of 3-dimentional manifold, (even if impossible to cross becoause of event horizons) such as suggested by string theory, and we consider that in string theory gravity is not bound to 3 dimentions, then our galaxy will be applying a gravatational force (dilluted, perhaps, by the distance between the manifolds) to whatever is on the other side of the wormhole. Conversely, if there is a galazy-sized mass around the other side of the wormhole, it would presumably appply a gravatational force to us, though not otherwise interating with our space. Weakly interacting, massive objects...

Nobody? I called out this as supporting evidence for something like Dark Matter, and noone wants to comment?

[K^2]

Rakaydos, you can't be thinking of gravity as curvature in the manifold, and then think about how gravity propagates through said curvature. Does that make sense? Wormhole, by the fact of its very existence, is going to affect gravity around it. And various massive objects near the wormhole are going to affect the wormhole, certainly. But you can't just say that if a wormhole links two points in 3-space, then massive objects on one side are going to attract objects on the other. Just doesn't work this way on this level. More importantly, even if there is indirect interaction, from our point of view, it will simply look like extra mass of the black hole at the center of the galaxy. It won't appear like an extra pull throughout the galaxy, which is what we're observing.

Also, even if we prove that some of the supermassive black holes are actually wormholes, there is no guarantee that they link to anywhere in our space. Of course, if they are not traversable, and barring FTL travel, that is a moot point.

Has that ever been proven/disproven?

Than google it

Has it never been proven/disproven?

Someone will, eventually

There are statements that can be proven to be impossible to prove or disprove. That should pretty much put the rest of that silly discussion to rest.

[Sirrobert]

There are statements that can be proven to be impossible to prove or disprove. That should pretty much put the rest of that silly discussion to rest.

That sounds pritty counterintiuitive, but fair enough.

Though as a layman I'd still class that under 'proven' catogary, with a pritty big * behind it

Seriously, how the hell do you prove that you can't prove something? Is that like pi going on forever, so we'll never see the last decimal?

[andrewas]

Godel's incompletness theorem. Turns out that any set of axiom's powerful enough to construct mathematics has to be either inconsistent or incomplete - either you can use it to prove contradictions, or there are true statements that can never be proven without additional axioms.

[Sirrobert]

Huh.

I never expected such a simple awnser. Cool

[ZetaX]

As I already said in my earlier post: the axiom of choice is neither provable nor disprovable in ZF set theory (the last four posts seem to not even have read my post at all). That's a much more interesting case than Gödel's as it explicitely gives you a naturally occuring statement of such type.