Well this: Wouldn't it be absolutely amazing if we had a method of determining, before we dive headlong into solving/answering problems/questions, whether the problem/question is solvable/answerable in the first place? — Agent Smith

Non-math questions? Wouldn't that be impossible without the use of absolutes (even if you can "plug in" subjective values)?

Not a math guy (I'm sure you can tell), but after looking into it I find it remarkable how he came up with it and it remained unsolved (neither proven nor disproven) for so long. Quite cool. But say a represents the idea of happiness (subjective) and b represents likely consequences that may result from pursuing a, while c represents the current state of being (contentedness, resignation, boredom, despair, what have you). Is this like trying to determine if based on c what it would require to reach a, being b is worth it aka a reasonable pursuit?

For example, if your subjective absolute for c is "just about happy" and your subjective absolute for b is "losing all wealth and ending up homeless, it would not be reasonable to pursue b to achieve a seeing as the difference between a and c is very small, lesser than the risk of b. However if your subjective absolute for c is "miserable" and your subjective absolute for b is "having to downsize to a smaller apartment which I enjoy anyway" then it would be worth pursuing b in order to achieve a seeing as the difference between a and c in this example is greater than the risk of b. Is that something like what you mean or am I way off here?

Edit: Basically kind of a fancy way to say "is the potential risk of an endeavor worth the potential(?) reward of it?". I'm thinking you mean something else.

A = problem (let's say a flat tire)
B = resources available to solve it (an incomplete jack set, and a cell phone I can call a tow truck with)
C = solution (the tire being functional/changed and the vehicle being able to drive)

In this scenario, C can be reached using B (thanks to the cell phone to call the tow truck) thus alleviating A. Or no? Give an example, if you please.

Interesting angle to my thesis. All I can say is you've managed to keep it real, kudos!

To get to the point, the so-called continuum hypothesis (math) can't be proven/unproven i.e. it's undecidable. This, paradoxically, has been proven. Think along these lines please. Danke for your input.