[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 69 KB, 800x259, bat3.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7264712 No.7264712 [Reply] [Original]

Literature:
One Plus One Equals Two

Math:
1+1=2

Do I have this right?

>> No.7264723

Literature:
One plus one equals two, but why? How?

Math:
1+1=2, because it just does, trust me.

>> No.7264755

>>7264723
Literature :
Why

Math :
How

>> No.7264771

>this thread
Op's gay
>Jani
How?

>> No.7264773

>>7264755
Literature only asks the whys of a single subject: the human mind
Science asks the whys and hows of the entire universe

>> No.7264782

Literature:
One plus one equals two, but why? How? Let's talk the next twenty paragraphs about that, even though we already know the answer.

Math:
1+1=2, done. Now let's advance to something instead of getting stuck in shit we already know.

>> No.7264784

>>7264755 >>7264723 >>7264773
>yfw there is no "why"; only "how"

>> No.7264792

>>7264712

Literature:
One Plus One Equal Two, but how will this help me understand the sublime and/or conquer Nora's fart ?

Maths:
One Plus One Equal Two. Why is that true ? Does it makes sense ? Can we draw interesting conclusions from this ?

>>7264723
You actually switched those. Mathematicians (and philosophers) are the only one to ask questions about what addition is, how it can be defined, and what are its properties. Everyone else uses it as if it was obvious and not worth thinking about twice.

>> No.7264809

Literature:
Quoth I "One pluseth one equaleth two"
"Indeed", replied Miss Sillyname

Philosophy:
What if like, one and one made two, whoa

Science:
One plus one doesn't equal anything, metaphysics is bunk

Math:
1+1=2, Seriously guys, was it that hard?

>> No.7264813

Literature:
One Plus One Equals Two. And there's something terribly sad and banal about that.

>> No.7264816

>>7264773
This is a gross misconception. You should read the Manifest of the scientist circle of Vienna and Dilthey's work on the separation between humanities and science (ie. truth and meaning as two different entities.)

Also, science precisely explains how, but never why, as in it never explains for what purpose, in what goal, but only the mechanical origin, and never an intent.

>>7264784
The intents should be normative

>> No.7264834

>>7264723
>trust me.
some guy actually went about and proved that y'know

>> No.7264837

>>7264834
pls elaborate

>> No.7264846

>>7264837
http://math.stackexchange.com/a/278983

>> No.7264861

>>7264846
>tfw this is in my cursus and I'm supposed to know that

t-thanks anon

>> No.7264865

>>7264834
1 / 3 = 0.333
0.333 * 3 = 0.999
1 = 0.999
1 + 1 = 1.998

>> No.7264893

>>7264834
>proved
All that a mathematical proof of 1+1=2 "proves" is that 1+1=2 if you assume it to be true. As Wittgenstein pointed out, propositions are always contained within the axioms from which they are derived, and axioms are always arbitrary.

>> No.7264896

Literature:
>One plus one equals who the fuck knows for sure, am I even real? Find out next time on dragon ball Z

Mathematics
>1+1=2, because [...]

Science
>Does 1+1=2, and if it does, why and how can I prove it

>> No.7264901

>>7264816
>implying normative intent is always correct

>> No.7264934

>>7264893
> As Wittgenstein pointed out

No need to bring Witty into this, that debate is older than him and your point was made before him.

>axioms are always arbitrary

They're not arbitrary, simply unprovable. Most of the time you will choose axioms depending on what you are trying to accomplish. It's needn't be arbitrary unless you consider the choice of a subject for a phD thesis (or the choice of a subject for a book) to be arbitrary too.

>proved

Well, yes, proved means obtained as consequences of a finite sequence of deductions (following some given rules of deduction) from axioms. A mathematical proof of "1+1=2" is indeed a proof of "1+1=2", and unless you want to sperg over some nonexistent absolute standard of Truth or whatever it can be good enough depending on what you're interested in.

By your reasoning the proofs of the most surprising results (say, the analyticity of the holomorph functions, the central limit theorem or the index theorem) simply mean that you assume those results to be true. It's quite a shallow and uncreative (if "correct") way to look at mathematics, pretty much missing the point.

In the particular case of "1+1=2", your argument might hold because it's so close to the axiom it's basically a trivial consequence of it, but the way you phrased your argument made it look like it would apply to every theorem. Which, again, would be missing the point of mathematical proofs in the first place.

>> No.7265587

>>7264712
>Literature
2 + 2 = 5
>Maths
2 + 2 = 4

>> No.7265612

>>7264865
Math debunked

>> No.7266553

>>7264865

except dis wrong bc 1/3 = .333... , where the ellipsis denotes the 3s trail forever. so 1 + 1 = 1.99999999999... = 1 + .9999999... = 1 + 1 = 2

>> No.7266566

>>7266553
well, i skipped the step i thought was obv but
1/3 = .333...
3(1/3) = 3(.333...)
1 = .999

1 + 1 = .999... + .999... = 1.999... = 1 + .999... = 1 + 1 = 2

>> No.7266576

>>7266566
.999...*

>> No.7266581
File: 31 KB, 360x235, wally.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7266581

>Literature
One plus one equals two and there's something terribly sad and banal about it.

>Math
1 + 1 = 2

>> No.7266586

>>7264893

well, on the last note, witty didn't prove that, because godel actually formally proved that within any system there are true propositions that cant be proven. thus some arent contained within the axioms

if a proposition is to exist though, under a given set of axioms, you're right

>> No.7266589

>>7266586

i just went full retard, ignore the last statement

>> No.7266593

This is probably the most xkcd tier thread that /lit/ has ever had

>> No.7266635

>>7266566
Wouldn't it be 1.999... In the end? Where did you get that extra 0.00...01?

>> No.7267225

>>7266635
There is no extra 0.0...01 because 0.999...=1

>> No.7267229

>>7264846
Didn’t Gödel invalidate that?

>> No.7267234

>>7264723
>>7264755
What the fuck are you guys doing? This isn't highschool.

>> No.7267308

>>7267234
This is a shitpost thread.

>> No.7267362

>>7267229
No, he just showed that using this method you can't get the answer to every question that you want an answer to and there's no way to get around that

>> No.7267366

>>7267362
thats terribly sad and banal

>> No.7267369

>>7265587

>Literature
2 + 2 = 5
>Maths
2 + 2 = 5

If we say it's 5, Winston, then it will be 5.

>> No.7267370

>>7267229
>>Didn’t Gödel invalidate that?
math/logic is pure imagination after you imagine rules of ''validity of deductions''

>> No.7267942
File: 11 KB, 470x454, 1429303608811.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7267942

How < Why
or
Why < How

>> No.7268340

>>7266635

you'd think there would be an extra 0.00...1, however with .999... it NEVER ends--that is what is implied by the ellipsis. Even if you stopped 1,000,000 decimal places down, that number would be INFINITELY times larger than the *actual* .1 at the end. Mind you, actual, here, is a bit of a tricky word, as you would never actually reach a 1 at the end of .999...

>> No.7268351

>>7267942
Literature:
The questions of 'why' and/or 'how' are not necessarily greater or lesser than the other, but that perhaps it is that in certain contexts one may be of more practical use than the other. Or, to perceive this situation in another light...

Mathematics:
How < Why
or
Why < How

>> No.7268389

>>7264712
Literature:
A

Math:
x

>> No.7268405

>>7268340
That still doesn't make 0.999... be 1

>> No.7268675

>>7268405
.9 repeating is in fact exactly equal to 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999......

>> No.7268783

>>7268405

it does, because you can never pinpoint the difference between them. as you cannot give an accurate discrepancy between the two, they are equal.

>> No.7270598

>>7268405
u're dumb

>> No.7272382
File: 56 KB, 561x370, 1440283222762.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7272382

>>7264712
/sci/entist here.
>Math:
1+1=2 if and only if it is performed in some algebraic structures (i.e. R, Z).
i.e. 1+1(mod 1) = 0
1+1(mod 2) = 0

>> No.7272403

>>7272382
you could be a little bit more precise with that;
besides, without mention of what context the arithmetical operation is occurring, it's standard to assume the ring/field of the reals.

>> No.7272408

>>7264837
Proving 1+1=2 is a pretty standard introductory question to get students into rigorous proofs. It's also a standard "let's see if my new formulation of axioms work" test.

>> No.7272414

>>7268675
>implying there isn't an infinitesimal between 0.9... and 1

Bitches don't know 'bout my hyperreals

>> No.7272719
File: 19 KB, 500x208, Principia_Mathematica_54-43.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7272719

>>7264837

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principia_Mathematica

Russell and Whitehead. 4chan likes to throw around the insult "autism". You don't have the first clue.

The Principia Mathematica (not to be confused with Newton's text on physics, written about two hundred+ years earlier) is one of the most autistic texts of all time, bar none. It's 1500-ish pages spread over three volumes, and it all, /all/ looks exactly like pic related. I've flipped through an edition a few times, even locating the famous "1+1=2" passage toward the back of V.1. The idea was to formalize the entirety of mathematics and (being simplistic, now) remove all paradoxes of logic; the whole project of this well-over-one-thousand pages (I wanna say 1200-1500, 4-500 per volume) was scuttled about 17 years later when Gödel did his thing that took all of 36 pages.

So although the project was doomed, it bears mentioning that mathematicians and logicians have though long and hard about the "why", contrary to some above posts.

Per wiki, they wanted to do a fourth volume on geometry, but they copped to intellectual exhaustion. For those of you who have read or want to read the Tractatus, /this/ work is what Wittgenstein spends much of his time responding to, even using the same logical notation (in particular, the backwards C-looking thing as the "implies" operator, what we now usually denote by → )

>> No.7273540

>>7267362
Including the question of whether or not it's consistent, which is kind of the most important one.

>> No.7273681

>>7265587
this faggot knows whats up.
word, bro!
back to the underground . . .

>> No.7274544

>>7272719
Why waste their time though.

Doubting the foundation of objective logic is The Matrix-tier philosophy. It's fascinating to think about but inevitably you will accomplish absolutely nothing from thinking it through, let alone applying that much redundant empirical evidence to it.

>> No.7274673

>>7274544
...you don't seem to understand what he meant by 'paradoxes of logic.'