/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19563493]

>1 + 1 = 2
Why?
>ummm... my axioms... set theory... russel said so... trust the science... it... it just is okay???
Kek

[Anonymous No.19563561]

>>19563493
Because my axioms

[Anonymous No.19563570]

>>19563493
something something godel's incompleteness theory something something

[Anonymous No.19563571]

Um actually + (plus) becomes + (quus) sometimes

[Anonymous No.19563575]

>>19563493
This makes the /sci/ sperg lose his mind

[Anonymous No.19563606]

>>19563493
frightening to think someone took time creating this image

[Anonymous No.19563621]

ever heard of piano's axioms? stupid

[Anonymous No.19563653]

>>19563493
This shit works you retard

[Anonymous No.19563664]

I will never believe in (((math)))

[Anonymous No.19563675]

/lit/s mathematical (in)ability is why most of them don't have a real job.

[Anonymous No.19563681]

>>19563621
Kek

[Anonymous No.19563686]

>>19563653
It works within the system created for it. You could make a system in which 1+1=3 and it would still work. It's all arbitrary.

[Anonymous No.19563695]

>>19563561
fpbp

[Anonymous No.19563723]

>>19563686
Please create one to prove your point.

It needs to be a coherent SYSTEM tho, however tiny, not just one random rule that can't scale.

[Anonymous No.19563732]

>>19563664
I love this image.

[Anonymous No.19563735]

>>19563723
1+1=3
1+3=2
done

[Anonymous No.19563736]

>>19563723
>Switch the numbers 2 and 3.
>Mathfags mogged
>How? Semantics, it still works the same. But 1+1 does equal 3.

[Anonymous No.19563742]

>>19563493
because when I raise my finger and than another one, there are two of them raised

[Anonymous No.19563750]

>>19563742
You actually have 6: 1 finger, 1 hand, 1 arm, 1 finger, 1 hand, and lastly 1 arm

[Anonymous No.19563757]

>>19563723
+= +1 when 1+1, otherwise + = +

[Anonymous No.19563777]

>>19563493
If 0 is {}, then 2 is just shrothand for { {{}}, {} }, and 1+1=2 because { {{}} }∪{ {} }={ {{}}, {} }.

[Anonymous No.19563827]

>>19563735
2+3=?

>>19563736
lel

[Anonymous No.19563834]

>>19563827
>2+3=?
5

[Anonymous No.19563864]

>>19563834
>1+1=3
>1+3=2
2+3=5
1+3+3=5
1+6=5
7=5

[Anonymous No.19563868]

>>19563864
Wrong
1+1=3
1+3=2
2+3=5
1+3+3=5
2+2=6
1+6=7

[Anonymous No.19563895]

>>19563864
>>19563868
All I did by the way was switch the characters for 2 and 3
So the character "2" = 3, and the character "3" = 2

[Anonymous No.19563902]

>>19563895
Based genius, like myself.

[Anonymous No.19563990]

>>19563895
>>19563864
>>19563736
Trivial.

[Anonymous No.19564059]

>>19563990
Daring.

[Anonymous No.19564150]

>>19563723
Consider the group Z_1 which consists only of the element 1.

[Anonymous No.19564371]

>>19563686
It is all arbitrary, you're right, you could not come up with any arbitrary system of mathematics that is different in any way from the one we already have, in terms of actually different inherent logic and not just different set of symbols to represent that logic like what you did with changing "1+1=2" into "1+1=3". The definitions of "2" in the first system and "3" in the second are the exact same.

[Anonymous No.19564403]

>>19564371
**BUT you could not come up yadda yadda yadda. Forgot to say "but"

[Anonymous No.19564442]

I made a post before explaining this exact thing but it got no replies; reposting it in hopes that it will help any of you who genuinely aren't sure.

What's addition? Try the Peano Axioms :)
Start with three primitive concepts
> number
> 0 (zero)
> Successor
Then with these Axioms
> I. 0 is a number.
> II. Every number has a successor (for n this is denoted S(n)) which is also a number.
> III. Zero is not the successor of any number.
> IV. For all numbers n and m, S(n)=S(m), if and only if n=m.
> V. (the Principal of Induction) For all properties of some number n, P(n), if it's true that if P(n) holds for n then P(S(n)) must also hold, and if it's true that P(0) holds, then P(n) must hold for all numbers n.
Definition 1.:
> 1 := S(0); 2 := S(1); 3 := S(2); 4 := S(3); etc.
We've defined the natural numbers.
Definition 2. (of addition):
> i. n+0 = n
> ii. n+S(m) = S(n+m)
Problem 1.
> 1+0 = 1 (by def. 2. i.)
Problem 2.
> 1+1 = 1+S(0) (by the definition of 1 in def. 1.)
> 1+S(0) = S(1+0) (by the def. 2. ii.)
> S(1+0) = S(1) (since 1+0 = 1 as we saw in Prob. 1)
> S(1) = 2 (by the definition of 2 in def. 1.)
> therefor 1+1=2
Doing this from memory so hopefully I didn't fuck anything up but someone will probably correct me if I did so it's whatever.
This was definitely one of the neatest things I learned when I first heard about it.

[Anonymous No.19564453]

>>19563493
Because it's more convenient than Roman numerals

[Anonymous No.19564465]

>>19564442
Bros, why am I so turned on by women giving the middle finger?

[Anonymous No.19564478]

>>19563493
> ( o )( o ) = ( o o )
Imagine getting filtered by this.

[Anonymous No.19564537]

>>19564478
( o o )( o ) = ( o o o )
?
( o o )( o ) = ( o o )
?????????

[Anonymous No.19564547]

>>19564478
( o )( o ) = ( o )
retard

[Anonymous No.19564604]

>>19564537
> ( o o )( o ) = ( o o o )
Correct!
> ( o o )( o ) = ( o o )
Incorrect :(
>>19564547
No, you can't delete an "o"--sorry! that's the rule!

[Anonymous No.19564615]

>>19564478
boob lol

[Anonymous No.19564663]

>>19563493
>Why?
Effectively, for no reason other than convenience. Peano arithmetic is ultimately as arbitrary as spoken language.

And just like language - you can come up with your own Esperanto and eventually make it work, but everyone on 4chins is going to speak English regardless of how much you seethe.

[Anonymous No.19564675]

> It's le arbitrary
It's true and it must be true, that's it.
The existence of other systems are irrelevant, because for the purpose of counting and measuring there can only be one system and that is our system (any other system could only be an isomorphism of ours).
Seethe, cope, and dilate.

[Anonymous No.19564695]

1+1 might not always equal 2, but it is always even.

[Anonymous No.19564725]

>>19564675
Then how can Imperial exist?

[Anonymous No.19564734]

>>19564725
>Imperial
???

[Anonymous No.19564742]

>
Please stick to literature.

[Anonymous No.19564757]

>>19564734
1 = 3 = 36 ????

[Anonymous No.19564767]

>>19564742
Tell me what you mean by imperial fag.
Do you mean imperial vs metric because that would be fucking retarded but I have no idea what else you could mean.

[Anonymous No.19564772]

>>19564757
No, that's false.

[Anonymous No.19564823]

>>19563493
>Why
It's convenient.
If you want to use another system, let's say, 1+1=3, all you have to do is convince other people to use it because, obviously, it will be useless in the pratical world if you're the only one using it. Now ask yourself, why would people use it? Why is it better than the system we already use?

[Anonymous No.19565016]

two is just a shorter way of saying a thing and another thing

[Anonymous No.19565028]

nah
1 + 1 + a jew to calculate the sum = 2 + a jew to check the work of the other jew
math 4chan style

[Anonymous No.19565029]

>>19565016
Yeah but then puns and semantics come to ruin everything

[Anonymous No.19565046]

>>19563493
1 + 1 = 2 is false, because it presupposes that their are seperate thing, when in reality everything is one

[Anonymous No.19565279]

>>19565046
/thread