/sci/ - Science & Math

i can only disprove it

>>10164976
your mom

1 + 1
= S(0) + S(0)
= S(S(0)) + 0
= S(S(0))
= 2

your welcome

>>10164975
A >> A = B

>>10164975
Would it help to prove that 1 + 1 is not equal to zero and that therefore it has to be equal to some other number, and if you assume that this is some kind of graph coloring then that would mean that you would need to use another color, that is the color "2"?

>>10164975
https://x80.org/collacoq/oyikofahez.coq

>>10164999
>S(0) + S(0)
>= S(S(0)) + 0
explain why
don't say it's trivial

>>10165010
Should be S(S(0) + 0), and it's by definition of addition in peano axioms

>>10164975
U have one banana and then u get another one, that make two banana you feel me?

>>10165049
Value of non standardized product comes in grams.

>>10164975
define 1 and 2

>>10165072
Define define

>>10165073
The words in your request are undefined so it's meaningless

>>10165266
Define the
Define words
Define in
Define your
Define request
Define are
Define undefined
Define so
Define it's
Define meaningless

>>10164975
here

300 page proof on why 1+1=2
amazon com/Principia-Mathematica-Set-v-1-3/dp/052106791X#reader_052106791X
but a lot is defining the terms

If this proposition is true, then 1+1=2

>>10165276
You're like an old text adventure game

Because that is how "2" is defined.

>>10165312
This basically. It is more interesting to find out what 0 and 1 are.

Can negative numbers be rigorously defined without 0?

>>10165320
-x=x-(x+x)

>>10165282
Elaborate

>>10165321
this is quite circular

>>10165324
Tautological* and that's the point, it's a formula for negative numbers not using zero

>>10165327
no, i asked for a definition and you defined a negative number by using itself

>>10165331
So you are asking for a definition of negative numbers without subtraction?

>>10165322
What's there to elaborate? It's a visual proof. Assuming we already know what 0 and what 1 is. And we have defined the addition. Then we can let empty be 0, one dot be 1 and two dots be 2. Two dots also happens to be the same as 1 + 1. Therefore 1 + 1 = 2.

>>10165333
you dumb idiot i asked if you could define negative numbers, and therefore subtraction, without using 0

>>10165320
-x=(ix)I
If you say this is circular you can suck my dick.

>>10164975
because niggers

>>10165339
yeah bro im going to need some clarification here. what is i and l? and are the brackets signifying multiplication?

>>10165053
You have one gram of gold and then you get another one, that makes two grams you feel me.

>value of non-standardized products comes in grams.
I bet you're fun at parties.

>>10165358
poster is underage and can be reported for breaking site rules

>>10165404
thanks bro

>>10164975
1+1=0

>>10165367
Am I supposed to be funny? Things people call funny are things they joking about. Do you enjoy people joking about you?

Nobody does have to be funny to have fun. The actual fun.

>>10165320
Why couldn't you? If you don't do anything with them, then it's easy:
let A be the set of all positive numbers (without zero) α
let B be the set of all α of A mapped to the notation "-α"
the elements of B are from herein referred to as "negative numbers"
let C be A united with B
then C is the set of all positive and negative numbers without 0

Now what? Or do you mean can they be defined to be consistent with operations like addition and multiplication?

>>10165320

>>10165438
You didn't refute the one gram plus one gram is two troglodyte.

Also according to Kant mathematics such as addition is synthetic a priori knowledge so there is no point to prove it if is true to begin with.

>>10164975
Math ultimately relies on intuition, if you don't have the intuition it's impossible to prove anything to you.

>>10164975
Suppose we have a vector space V where each vector looks like this <a>, the vector space is closed under addition so <a>+<b> must be equal to some element <c> which is also a member of V. c is defined as <a+b> by the linear nature of vector addition. Plugging in the special case of <1+1>=<2> we get what we want. There is no real proof here, its just convention and definition. Maybe instead ask the question how do we define addition?

>>10165572
You forgot to define that 0 and 1 are elements of of V.

>>10164975
If I have one apple and then pick up another apple, I now am holding 2 apples.

>>10165598
What is an apple though?

>>10165600
If OP makes 1 faggot shit post, and then makes another faggot shitpost, he has now made 2 faggot shitposts.

>>10165603
The problem with this is you are opening a giant can of worms. It is a function of our human perception to take parts of space and define them as distinctive objects. There is no objective reason why an apple would be different than the rest of space surrounding it. We just decide that it is something we can pick up and move around and manipulate, therefore we decide it is "its own thing".

And we decide that object is an apple based on some characteristics shared by apples in general. Are two apples the same thing? No. They are not identical, no two apples have exactly the same shape, texture, weight, color, taste or atomic structure. So why are two "apples" the "same thing"? Why do you get "two apples" instead of "apple variant a" and "apple variant b"?

It is merely our abstraction of what it means to be an apple, seemingly arbitrary approximations of the similar properties shared by both objects based on their subjective utility to us in our lives.

Now try to write this down mathematically. Good luck.

>>10164975
why's this gorilla so handsome

>>10165610
>Now try to write this down mathematically.
If any mathematical language is capable of doing this, it's category theory. Also required is the abandonment of substance (thing-in-itselfness) as anything more than an abstraction, and instead a metaphysical schema consisting of relationships (process metaphysics.)

https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005683

http://nrl.northumbria.ac.uk/2976/1/Heather_Process%20Categories.pdf

>>10165610
Wow you're so smart. I wish I was as smart as you

>>10165320
It's the left adjoint of the inclusion functor of the full subcategory of semigroups of the category of groups, evaluated at the object X={1,2,...}.
This object is in turn the left adjoint of the forgetful functor of the category of sets into the category of semigroups evaluated at the final object of the category of sets.

>>10164975
0 is a missing state
1 is an occupied state
If 0 can be a missing state for >1 objects
Then 1 + 1 can = 2 occupied states

>>10164975
1 + 1
= 1 + S(0)
= S(1 + 0)
= S(1)
= 2

>>10164975
x + x = 2
2x = 2
2x/2 = 2/2
x = 1

1 + 1 = 2

:)

>>10165812
That relies on 1 + 1 = 2 being true in the first place