In simple terms, Kurt Godel, showed that any axiomatic system must be incomplete. That is to say, it is possible to make a statement such that neither the statement nor its opposite can be proved using the axioms. I expect this is the correct answer though I believe that he proved it for ANY axiomatic system in mathematics - not specifically for whole numbers.
No, they are not the same. Axioms cannot be proved, most properties can.
properties are based on axioms
No, not at all. The Incompleteness Theorem is more like, that there will always be things that can't be proven. Further, it is impossible to find a complete and consistent set of axioms, meaning you can find an incomplete set of axioms, or an inconsistent set of axioms, but not both a complete and consistent set.
ang tanga mo nman yan lng ndi mo masagutan bobo ka
The five axioms, or postulates proposed by Peano are for the set of natural numbers: not real numbers. They are:Zero is a natural number.Every natural number has a successor in the natural numbers.Zero is not the successor of any natural number.If the successor of two natural numbers is the same, then the two original numbers are the same.If a set contains zero and the successor of every number is in the set, then the set contains the natural numbers.
They are the non-negative integers or whole numbers: {0, 1, 2, 3, ... }Some people exclude 0 but Peano's axioms include it.
Peano axioms was created in 1889.
Axioms - album - was created in 1999.
They are called axioms, not surprisingly!
Axioms cannot be proved.
axioms
The simple answer is, everything in mathematics -- numbers, functions, relations, algebraic structures, geometric figures, infinite sequences and series, etc. -- can be defined in terms of sets. And their properties can be proved from the axioms of set theory. There's more to it than that, but that's a start.