I am not sure if anyone give this reference to the Millenium Problems: http://www.claymath.org/millennium/

Ricky wrote:

1.  Prove that if a divides c and b divides c, then ab divides c.

4|16 && 8|16 ,but 32 !| 16.
It's :
(a|c && b|c) =>gcd(a,b)|c.

For seven:
The topic is interesting. I think you're brave for posting it. I was not able to read your first posts, because they are DELETED!!!

You were asking for a statement, which cannot be proved with some set of axioms and which is true.
Here you're wrong. The "validality" of an statement depends on the set of axioms. There don't exist an universally true statemet, which is true for every set of axioms. So, if an statement A is unprovable over a set of axioms {X,Y,...,Z}, we can assume that it's true or it's false. If we assume that it's true, we are getting the new system: {X,Y,...,Z,A}, in which the statement is provable to be true.
But if we assume that A is false, over the set {X,Y,...,Z,!A}, A is provable to be false.

I hope you to understand.

Unless you're from china (not that I am)

Ricky wrote:

Wikipedia provides great reference for information.  But it really only makes sense once you understand the topic.  Don't get me wrong, it may help.  But you are better off looking for a book or site which is meant to teach.

Yes. You're right.
I like wikipedia, because i understand most of what i need.
someone may not.

But give them time.  As soon as they are done making articles such as Fictional Brands in South Park, I'm sure they'll go back to touch up the important ones

I'm telling you, they have everything.  The best was Steven Colbert.  He has a satirical news show on Comedy Central, the Colbert Report (you don't pronounce either 't').  On his show last night, he said in the intro in which he summarizes what will be in the show, "Then I give a report on wikipedia.  You can read about it on wikipedia in 10 minutes."

He then went on saying that on wikipedia, you can make things "fact" as long as enough people agree with what you write.  So he suggested making it a "fact" that the number of elephants had increased in the pass 6 months.  Sure enough, in about 30 seconds (I had my computer handy), the elephants page said ath the top:

THE NUMBER OF ELEPHANTS HAS TRIPLED IN THE LAST SIX MONTHS!

Later (possibly now), the article was tagged:

(Protected Elephant: Colbert)

Hi;

Do you have a counter-example?