what is the commonly accepted idea/principle/axiom, that if proved false, would single-handedly revolutionarize the most science/maths ?
>>8073958
Theory of relativity, we'll overcome the Judenphysik once and for all
/thread
P not equal to NP
theory of intelligent design
[math]1+1=2[/math]
>>8073958
Time travel in the past.
>>8073958
First Law of Thermodynamics
A=A
>>8074156
that wont change anything. now if P is equal to NP, that will change everything
>>8073958
AoC is a pretty obvious one, if somebody found a problem with that it would break large chunks of virtually every section of modern mathematics
>>8074262
Yeah, the problem is OP said "proved wrong". I don't even know what it would even mean to prove the axiom of choice wrong.
I'll say Navier Stokes equations.
associativity? it's everywhere
>>8074398
Show it leads to an awful paradox like the Axiom Schema of Comprehension leads to Russel's Paradox.
It already leads to the Banach-Tarski paradox but it seems that's not nasty enough for most mathematicians to care. I'm sure there are many more examples.
>>8074412
The whole cryptography as a field would cease to exizts
The major complexity results of the last twenty years start as "unless the polynomial hierachie collapses"
>>8073960
this
>>8074487
>The whole cryptography as a field would cease to exizts
No, dumb ass. A Θ(N^6) SAT solver would still be worthless for most things.
>>8074226
This is what I was gonna post
>>8074487
Dumb popsci faggot, go back to /pol/
>>8073958
OP is a faggot
>>8074412
Retard alert
>>8074241
>A=A
this is the correct answer
>>8073958
x/0 = b
>>8073960
>/threading your own post
How gauche
>>8074262
Like what?
We'd had to throw away some non-constructive aspects of functional analysis. That would have no consequences at all, except for those theorems not being of interest anymore, to the few pure mathematicians it was interesting before.
Any count arguments?
>>8074226
