ahmet

it might be a controversial issue what good means but there might be some tools for you to define your own goodness (e.g: if, to you, "good" means high IF ,then sjr might be a tool for you. and if "good" means "relevance" then, to me, you have to check each listed journals by your own ) there are some other databases like DOAJ , SCI ,...) the time period for publication is changing from one journal to another journal. But if you provide more context, then maybe we might help you better.

from my view, contributing to science is, of course entertaining. but one should differentiate something and take decision accordingly. 1) to me, science requires a bit education , but not higher (i.e. MSc and doctoral programs are not mandatory to contribute science. though,at least high school or primary school degree seems mandatory ) 2) higher degrees generally require strict efforts , but to obtain a higher degree will not mean a parallel employment . 3) This might be meaningless but I think that some cases might be relative from country to another country. For instance, while learning an amount of information might be useful in an A country, this might be very useless in a B country even if all aspects of the relevance of that information be same (e.g. how it is being taught) if you are a young one and looking for some suggestions on how to select something on this issue: then please take your decisions by your own and feel free please in the time of decision. and I can say that this would be a general case according to my personal approach based on my experiences. "generally the type of education that contains active applications ( in real) life brings more job options." a recommendation: I think one another forum might be more suitable for this thread. While there is a branch "political sciences" among the branches of scientific classification and although these days this issue is getting to be more popular and/or important time to time,I think that the processes in doing and contributing to science and their results might not be limited with political researches (i.e.politics)

hereby, within this comment, I recommend the moderation to move this thread to another forum. (maybe,speculations or one of other forums might be more suitable)

yes. but..it has been a bit late here and i had intented not to write until OP gives more contexts. ... have a good night.

hahahahhahhaa hahahhaa ok. I really spent enough effort to help the OP. sorry, but I won't reply anymore (at least until some contexts more be provided by OP) but already beacuse of laughing ... I suppose I can't by by now.

I am sure, I have tried ..

then how will you reach the title's implication: 2+2=5 with your this map?? I think this is your own supposition. check also simply wikipedia here with a part of this original title here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems#:~:text=G%C3%B6del's%20incompleteness%20theorems%20are%20two,capable%20of%20modelling%20basic%20arithmetic.&text=The%20second%20incompleteness%20theorem%2C%20an,cannot%20demonstrate%20its%20own%20consistency. this is your (own) understanding. if the question was relevant,then no problem for me. I recommend that you check the ordered/given references and try to correlate them well. but of course, this requires mathematical sight. I marked as OP's own reference in paranthesis.All are relevant each other and in the conformity. [1] N. BOURBAKI Elements of Mathematics Algebra I Chapters 1 - 3 ISBN 2-7056-5675-8 (Hermann) ISBN 0-201-00639-1 (Addison-Wesley) Library of Congress catalog card number LC 72- 5558 American Mathematical Society (MOS) Subject Classification Scheme (1970) : 15-A03, 15-A69, 15-A75, 15-A78 Printed in Great Britain page: 96-99 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms#Addition (this is the reference that OP provided. please check carefully the axioms here such as "Equivalent axiomatizations" check also please the note What you see here,in the OP's this link/reference) [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems#:~:text=G%C3%B6del's%20incompleteness%20theorems%20are%20two,capable%20of%20modelling%20basic%20arithmetic.&text=The%20second%20incompleteness%20theorem%2C%20an,cannot%20demonstrate%20its%20own%20consistency. ( a piece of OP's title ) general comment: this is a mathematics forum.

@studiot check please once again my previous post. (with the stated/given page infromation please, because it seems somebody who claims that he was well educated but not aware of 0 divisors of a circle. ) I disagree to this idea. because our keywords seems suitable: (* incompleteness) however, I have commonly experienced in mathematics, something (which seems even very simple ),can cause big discussions. so, I do not recommend thinking like this : "this is so much simple,I can easily resolve it" , Nah

check please this resource [1] ,in fact it is same with the above. [1] N. BOURBAKI Elements of Mathematics Algebra I Chapters 1 - 3 ISBN 2-7056-5675-8 (Hermann) ISBN 0-201-00639-1 (Addison-Wesley) Library of Congress catalog card number LC 72- 5558 American Mathematical Society (MOS) Subject Classification Scheme (1970) : 15-A03, 15-A69, 15-A75, 15-A78 Printed in Great Britain page: 96-99

then,I can say that being well educated will not bring you a guarantee to know everything anyway,as I see that your comments are going to be off topic,maybe I had better go until seeing a relevant comment.

I think that you were NOT a mathematician.

@studiot ,I did not check the book , but again I think that you would find the relevant theorems or further considerations in this resource and the continuation (series of ) the resource: https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783540642435

ok.it is easy. 0+0+0+0= 0.(0+0+0+0+0) 0(1+1+1+1)=0.(1+1+1+1+1) simplify 0s. the n 4=5 ,you can similarly obtain 1=0 etc. the core reason is effective here. have you understood the theorems ? I meant that you would not be able to write the simplification in that way. meanwhile,apart from our conversation, while I do not know specifically Gödel's that mentioned teorem, as I know, incompleteness is different subject (i.e. potentially irrelevant) one of our issues is from Algebra (general algebra) and the other one is presumably from functional analysis. of course,they are of intersections but specifically these two issues seems to me irrelevant.

to be honest, I did not understand the equation as it stands correctly so,I wrote my supposition/prediction. sorry if I failing. and how would we reach 0=1 in that way?

theorem 1) when <H,+,.> is a circle. a,b ϵ H-{0H} , if a.b=0H ,then a,b are called zero division of H circle. if tere is no such elements ,then H is called as it has had no this property. theorem 2:) H is a circle, and ∀ x,y,z ϵ H , for ∃ x≠ 0H ,if this; , x.y=x.z <=> y=z condition is satisfied then ,we can conclude that simplification exists in H. theorem 3) if H is a circle, to be able to apply simplification , theorem 1 is sufficient and required (<=>). thus, you cannot write the simplification in that way because of theorem 1 ,theorem 2 and theorem 3 (check please theorem 2).