A theorem can be proven (from axioms or prior theorems), using logic.
A hypothesis can be supported by evidence. The more evidence in support of the hypothesis, the more likely the hypothesis is to be correct. However, you’re always at the mercy of contrary evidence appearing in the future, to reduce the likelihood or even invalidate a hypothesis.
A (mathematical) proof suffers no such vulnerability to future evidence, as long as you hold the axioms of the theory to be true, and as long as there was no flaw in the construction of the proof.
(Example 1 )
<span>If the Voltage that furnishes the current is an ideal (no internal resistance) Voltage source. Then; </span>
<span>V/R = i </span>
<span>V/2R = i/2 If external resistance doubles, current reduced to 1/2 of original value </span>
<span>V/3R = i/3 If external resistance triples, current reduced to 1/3 of original value </span>
<span>(Example 2) </span>
<span>But if the Voltage that furnishes the current is a practical [contains an internal resistance (Ri)] Voltage source. Then the current is a function of the Voltage source`s internal resistance, which does not double nor triple, plus the external resistance which is being doubled and tripled. </span>
<span>V/(R + Ri) = i </span>
<span>V/(2R + Ri) = greater than i/2 but less than I. </span>
<span>V/(3R + Ri) = greater than i/3 but less than i/2</span>
Answer:
C
Explanation:
The increase in the distance between equilibrium positions for the vibrating atoms.
