• SzethFriendOfNimi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    That assumes that 1 and 1 are the same thing. That they’re units which can be added/aggregated. And when they are that they always equal a singular value. And that value is 2.

    It’s obvious but the proof isn’t about stating the obvious. It’s about making clear what are concrete rules in the symbolism/language of math I believe.

    • L3dpen@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      Isn’t 1 and +1 well defined by the Peano Axioms by using the intersection of all infinite successor functions and starting at the empty set?

      • Kogasa@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        12 hours ago

        It depends on what you mean by well defined. At a fundamental level, we need to agree on basic definitions in order to communicate. Principia Mathematica aimed to set a formal logical foundation for all of mathematics, so it needed to be as rigid and unambiguous as possible. The proof that 1+1=2 is just slightly more verbose when using their language.

    • GregorGizeh
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Not a math wizard here: wouldn’t either of the 1s stop being 1s if they were anything but exactly 1.0? And instead become 1.xxx or whatever?

      • whotookkarl@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        14 hours ago

        In base 2 binary for example the digits are 0 and 1. Counting from 0 up would look like 0, 1, 10, 11, 100, 101, 110, 111, 1000, 1001, 1010, 1011, 1100, 1101, 1110, 1111, 10000, etc

        In that case 1 + 1 = 10