>>11277224please explain. also explain the peterson ref, i am not following.
my understanding is that in order for math to prove you imagine axioms
every thing goes back to godel numbering, basically counting simple numbers
so what ever you call a proof is just a different angle to look at the object
say.. you looking... you see its that way....
you go through logical steps which are allowed by the axioms and you suddenly see that actually its also that
you thought they were different
but discovered using a proof that they are the same
