Question of questions

>you can't prove it
Proved by Russell and Whitehead in 1910,
you obstreperous jackanape.

>you can't prove it
>Proved by Russell and Whitehead in 1910
That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

2 is the definition of adding 1 and 1

trying way too hard there dude

and these people call each other brainlets l m fucking a o

Numbers represent cognitive separations of entities from within our environment. Before we even begin with a number we must first carry out an act of division, a separation, based on whatever parameters we choose.

You want to count apples? Well then you must first define what an apple is in your mind. Then you must use parameters to separate the defined apple from the environment.In life most of the time we use physical space to define this separation.

How do I count those apples on a tree? I have defined what an apple looks like based on a number of factors. Size, shape, colour, and other physical attributes as I deem fit. Now I separate the apple from the environment. By a boundary condition. For example, where it skin ends and the air begins. What if the apples are touching? Then by the overall curvature of the apple's shape I can distinguish between one apple and its neighbor. Or some other parameter I may wish to use. Now I begin to tally the apples, following arbitrary rules I have adopted. Addition is merely glorified bean ( or in this case apple ) counting. From that so is all of mathematics.

This is how our minds have evolved, how our on-board organic "computers" interpret the world around us. The numbering sytem and the mathematical models we have developed from manipulating them are inherently self reliant. Nothing wrong in that at all. It works for our purposes. But never believe its a last word in truth. The next big step in conceptual thinking will be when we go from "numbers" to, well, something else, that something else being inconceivable to us as yet, but something that does a better job of describing the Universe.

Consider the cat. The cat can at least count to one. For it can catch a mouse. But a cat knows nothing more advanced than that.And for all we know the cat will never, not ever, in its present evolutionary form, progress beyond that.

We are like the cat in that respect.

then you know shit about math

>why is it? 1+1=2 how do you prove it?

1 = .
2 = ..

. + . = ..

moron.

Haha! No. You are the moron.

Proof?

So basically 1 + 1 = 2 because 1 + 1 = 2

Math knows shit about logic.

No, you are. Speaking as a bystander with 140+ IQ.

i is 1 i
ii are 2 i's
i i 1,1 i's aka 2 i's

>imaginary numbers
anything outside of N is autistic

Math is a language. Language is metaphor. How do you prove metaphor? You can't. You can only validate its consistency. If you can't do that, you need a new brain.

you don't know a damn what you're talking about

Your illiterate objection offers nothing substantive by way of criticism. You are dismissed as irrelevant to any serious discussion.

1+1=S(1)=2

Where S(n) is the successor function

This fucking thread on Veeky Forums, really?

You cannot really begin to prove this without proper mathematical definitons on what we mean by "1", "natural numbers" and "addition".

Usually this is done in set theory by defining natural numbers as von Neuman ordinals aka constructing them from the empty set. Here's a quick wikipedia link on the subject:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set-theoretic_definition_of_natural_numbers

Then it becomes matter of how you define addition on these ordinals and from that you can prove that truly "1 + 1 = 2". I recommend Endertons Elements of set theory, chapter 4 as a source for all the details as I don't have right now and can't be bothered to find it.

I may just have responded to a troll thread.

...

Why does a 'B' sounds like a 'Be' but not like a bee or 'Y' ?

Some thing are just agreed upon.
But if you have ten fingers, and you start to count them, when you add one to one, two fingers are used to represent your experiment. If that is to hard for you, check Netflix.

1+1=2 is a perfectly logical conclusion in practice
you can prove it with physical objects
numbers themselves might be arbitrary, but quantification isn't

>numbers themselves might be arbitrary
... numbers themselves ARE arbitrary,
there is no "might be" about it ... but
there is nothing "arbitrary" about the rules
for the operations upon those numbers.

x+1=2
2-1=x
x=1

> but quantification isn't

your number is just random symbol shapes to represent a quantity

the quantity is based in reality.

you cannot have 0 of something realistically, but you can have 1

Well 1+1=2, where 2 is the solution to the problem

>thread answered in the fourth post
>posturing undergrads flood the thread with their uninformed opinions

Never change Veeky Forums

You have to presuppose the natural numbers to construct them, because there is no other way to understand the cardinality of the sets you are presumably constructing them from. This proves literally nothing and is viciously circular.

Its all subjective and nothing really matters. I hate going to church, fuck you dad. I'll listen to music whenever I want and however loud I want.

...

How is arithmetical addition defined?

I don't know, it's probably defined at some point in Principia Mathematica.

Well, until then it's not really much of an answer.

Well now you know where to find your answer. All you need now is to read a book.

>why is it?
definition

>So basically 1 + 1 = 2 because 1 + 1 = 2
yes. you can also define addition in different ways to yield 1 + 1 = 0.