Hilbert's sixth problem

Here I have in the comments appeared one modest request:

Help solve the problem associated with the extend of Kronecker–Weber theorem on abelian extensions of the rational numbers to any base number field.

Such a number of clever words in one sentence, I have not met. I immediately suspected that not all of the school textbook is taken, and from some other place. Type in the search phrase Wikipedia "Kronecker–Weber theorem" and look at the result. That's right, I slipped twelfth problem of Hilbert, has not been solved so far. Suddenly her uncle decides - all would be funny!

You should not expect. For me, the phrase "abelian extensions", "the rational numbers to any base number field" is no more than a collection of letters. In higher mathematics, I did not go through dog training and have no idea what to do, when he heard these phrases. Moreover, I do not even have a clue what the root of the unit n-th degree is different from the unit itself. In mathematics, the same thing can have different names, the same name can mean a variety of things. Hence, problems arise.

More than a hundred years ago David Hilbert formulated twenty-three problems of mathematics. Some problems have been resolved, some partially solved two problems remain unsolved to this day. There are also a number of problems that are simply hushed for clarity: "too vague" or "requires clarification of the phrase". Among these "jammed" caught my attention problems Hilbert's sixth problem, which is: Mathematical treatment of the axioms of physics. Mathematics jumped from the solution of this problem with the phrase "too vague". This is where I disagree with them.

Formulation of Hilbert very clearly, that's just to express nothing - not taken root in physics ideas about mathematics axioms, as his time in the chemistry did not take the idea of negative numbers. This mathematics all their theories verify with the axioms of physics as his theories verify with the experimental results. There physics postulates, but it's just a temporary patch on the white spots of our knowledge. Sooner or later, the postulates are replaced by physical laws. Temporary postulates physicists do not go to any comparison with the monumental firmness axioms of mathematics.

Here and there is a very sudden decision Hilbert's sixth problem - the language of mathematics is much easier to state "axioms" of religion than the axioms of physics. Looks mathematical presentation of the fundamentals of religion something like this:

- Sacred texts in religion - axioms and definitions in mathematics;

- All that is in this world created by God - in mathematics, the phrase "Let us given ..." by default assumes that everything God gives us;

- The story of Noah's ark and the "pair of every creature" - set theory;

- Man is composed of body and soul - complex numbers consist of real and imaginary parts;

- Kingdom of God - a complex space;

- God and the devil, good and evil - the positive and negative numbers;

- Holy Cross - Cartesian coordinate system.

If desired, you can thoroughly examine the sacred texts of religion and the sacred texts of Mathematicians (axioms and definitions) in search of other matches. In the language of religion, math is pretty good presents.

In my opinion, the problems in modern mathematics and believers alike - autism. They live in an imaginary world and not pay attention to their surroundings. Teaching of mathematics is very similar to the missionary preaching - we need to learn and do what they say preachers. All attempts to draw attention to the preachers of the surrounding reality ends are being sent to the sacred texts: "Read the Bible", "Read the definition."