/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11245448]

ok guys original thread, prove that 1+1=2

[Anonymous No.11245450]

>>11245448
ok

1+1=2

qed

[Anonymous No.11245457]

>>11245450
im sorry anon but this will not do, 0.5/2

[Anonymous No.11245506]

due to the fact that 1*2=2 1*2=1+1 its safe to say 1+1=2

[Anonymous No.11245532]

2 is just the name we give to the successor of 1
and addition is just defined in part by the relation x+1=1+x=succ{x}

[Anonymous No.11245543]

If you put one thing next to another thing, you have two things next to each other.

If pour 1 cubic meter of water into another cubic meter of water, you have two cubic meters of water.

Energy cannot be created or destroyed. Therefore in an environment where all energy is in an immutable state, combining two separate units of energy nets you a singular unit of energy comprising the energies of the two previously separate units.

Math is gay btw

[Anonymous No.11245545]

>>11245448
Place one hand on your scrotum. Feel your left testicle. Okay. Good! That is ONE (1) testicle. Now, feel your right testicle. You feel that? That is also ONE (1). Now, cradle both testicles. You feel TWO (2) testicles. 1+1=2

[Anonymous No.11245556]

>>11245448
hard to do without definition of the used symbols

[Anonymous No.11245577]

>>11245532
>>11245543
>>11245545
these are well enough, 1.5/2

[Anonymous No.11245610]

>>11245448

[Anonymous No.11245614]

1+1=2.61803398875

[Anonymous No.11245617]

>>11245610
splendid proof, 2/2
>>11245614
sorry anon i dont think this will cut it, 0/2

[Anonymous No.11245924]

A single integer paired with another single integer makes a pair of integers.

[Anonymous No.11246455]

consider cyclic group {0,1}, 1+1 = 0, q.e. not d.

[Anonymous No.11246527]

>>11245448
Not really sure about the details but with natural numbers the proof went something like this

Every natural number has by definition one number that follows it. This can be written as f(x). For example the follower of 1 is f(1) = 2.
Noe you can rewrite 1+1 as 1 + f(0) since f(0)=1
Now I think based on some more definitions you can rewrite 1 + f(0) to f(1+0) and since 0 is the neutral element of addition 1+0=1 and therefor what you are left with is f(1) which by definition is 2.
Now I left a lot out here but I think this is the basic idea

[Anonymous No.11246541]

>>11245448
1) Haskell evaluates (1 + 1) to 2.
2) Due to Curry-Howard-Isomorphism, a typechecking program is a proof
3) checkmate

[Anonymous No.11246553]

>>11245545
Made me laugh. Thanks.

[Anonymous No.11247119]

1+1=2 is a definition not a theorem.

[Anonymous No.11247138]

This has to start with a conversation. I have to first find out what you do believe. If you don't accept 1+1=2, what statements do you take as true? I can derive it from your axioms or find some way they are inconsistent using reductio ad absurdum if 1+1 != 2

[Anonymous No.11247163]

>>11245543
>have 1 glass of water
>have 1 other glass of water
>pour them together
>still just 1 glass of water
Something's fucked.

[Anonymous No.11247165]

>>11245448
count to one then use your other hand (or feet if you prefer) to count to one. now if you use your spare feet (or hand if you used your feet to count thus far) to count to two you can clearly see that the total number of erect fingers in your first two counting operations are equal to your last one so we can conclude that 1+1=2

[Anonymous No.11248228]

>>11245448
Let g(X) be a function returning the number of elements in a set
Let Q be a set with one element
Let F be a set with one element
Thus g(Q) and g(F) equal 1
g(Q) + g(F) = g(Q U F)
The set Q U F has two elements
Thus g(Q) + g(F) = 2
Thus 1 + 1 = 2
QED

[Anonymous No.11248376]

>>11248228
circular as fuck

[Anonymous No.11248391]

>>11245448
Fuck off.

[Anonymous No.11248453]

>>11245448
let . = 1
let . . = 2
If . + . = . . , then 1 + 1 = 2

[Anonymous No.11248475]

>>11247163
Youre using non-normalized measurements. It is 2 glasses of water using the original glasses as defining the size of a glass.

[Anonymous No.11248479]

>>11248453
faggot answer

[Anonymous No.11248496]

>>11248475
That's just defining your explanation to be the answer. By normalizing the volume of a glass, you are inherently discretizing the problem.

[Anonymous No.11248498]

>>11248453
>P implies P
True, but not useful or illuminating.

[Anonymous No.11248547]

I define 2 to be the result of 1+1
>t. mathematician

[Anonymous No.11248616]

>>11245448
>prove that 1+1=2
1. If 1+1 != ~2, then 1+1=2.
2. 1+1 != ~2.
3. Therefore, 1+1=2.

This argument is valid meaning it "follows." But it's just another way of writing the conclusion. Something as simple as 1+1 is necessary to be taken axiomatically, i.e. deferred to an axiom (which are taken as axioms in the first place only because they seem obviously true) for its truth. There is no such thing as a mathematical proof that isn't just writing 1+1=2 in a different way. Therefore, sorry science and math fanboys, but everything -- all knowledge -- is ultimately taken on faith. Even when axioms produce stuff like smartphones, you take it on faith that what you know is true.

[probably fake No.11248622]

The below is a work of fiction

>>11248600

How to train the machine learning algo to decode the transmission into words?

> Eye movements while reading leads to great test data
> notice the increase in prevelance of front facing cameras in smartphones

[Anonymous No.11248665]

>>11248228
>Failed to consider F=Q
Back to first year

[Anonymous No.11248926]

>>11248616
Sure you can take it as axiomatic but it needs to be taken as part of a set of axioms which are both consistent and useful for proving other things. However 1+1=2 is a poor axiom because any set of axioms including it which can be used to prove things about numbers or addition can likely be reduced to a smaller set of axioms that more rigorously defines what addition is doing and what sorts of numbers you're proving things about.
Someone at your level might attempt proving OP's conjecture with the peano axioms or if you really wanted to start from the bottom you could look into
>>11248616
It may seem like OP is shitposting but it's important for mathemeticians to autistically prove literally everything including"obvious facts" like 1+1=2
If you can't understand the need for rigour then this may not be the board for you

[Anonymous No.11248968]

>>11245610

should be noted that this happens after 100 or so pages

[Anonymous No.11249011]

A=B
A+A=B+B
If A+A=C, then B+B=C
Now with numbers
0.999... = 1
1+1=2
So 0.999...+ 0.999... = ...?

[Anonymous No.11249032]

>>11245610

thats what I was looking for and the reason why I've entered that post. thank you.

[Anonymous No.11249316]

>>11245448

[Anonymous No.11249407]

>>11249316
>induction

[Anonymous No.11249495]

>>11245448
If 2 = 1 + 1 then 1 + 1 = 2

[Anonymous No.11249605]

define 2

[Anonymous No.11249645]

>>11249032

You may be interested to know that Principa Mathematica (not to be confused with Newton's earlier physics text of a similar (longer) name), is a three-volume work. The meme occurs right in the middle of the first volume, page 379 in my first edition (and on a nearby page in the complete second-edition which added some appendices and condensed pagination slightly).

If you ever come across a hard copy of PM in a library, that's the general area where you'll find the meme: toward the middle of volume one.

t. guy who knows his Principias

[Anonymous No.11249675]

>>11245448
let there exist two axioms: first the axiom of ordance, second the axiom of choice. first we say that the ordance of the first axiom is to be itself.

we make this statement via the axiom of choice. the self ordance results in a unit. a unit is not divisble and does not reference anything but itself.

now we use the axiom of ordance and the axiom of choice together with the unit. we make the statement, this unit is linked to another unit. we continue to do this infinitly. we now state this is the natural number line. we take this numberline and in a sorts just extend our first point but now make it go in the other way. this gives us our integers. we can make similar tricks to obtain the rational, reals, and complex groups

finally a number is a number because it references how many units away from the origin it is. in this way we may talk about the addition of units as the simple joining via the axiom of ordance between two different numbers. the result is also a number which refers to a unit some known units away from the origin.

taking the plus operation as this joining function and the numbers as we normally use them, we obtain the statement 1+1=2 to be coherent and based souly off of two axioms.

[Anonymous No.11249703]

>>11245448
if we count in increments of 1 and 2 neighbours 1 linearly, 1+1=2

[Anonymous No.11249707]

>>11249703
should have oxford comma'd there, my bad

[Anonymous No.11250085]

>>11245448
>assume aoc
>take sphere
>apply Banach-Tarski procedure
>now there are two spheres
>qed

[Anonymous No.11250105]

>>11245448
>two things equals two things

[Anonymous No.11251172]

>>11246541
>>>/g/
>>11247119
>>>high school

[Anonymous No.11251203]

>>11245448
1 finger next to 1 finger makes 2 fingers

[Anonymous No.11251805]

>>11245448
prove that you don't have a dick up your ass

[None !AnOnYMous2 No.11251947]

>>11248926
>If you can't understand the need for rigour then this may not be the board for you
You just had to throw this in there, didn't you? I said nothing from which to anyone but an idiot might infer I don't appreciate rigor. And when I used the word "obviously," I was explicitly mocking how axioms are settled upon.

[Anonymous No.11251954]

>>11248926
>If you can't understand the need for rigour then this may not be the board for you
You just had to throw this in there, didn't you? I said nothing from which anyone but an idiot might infer I don't appreciate rigor. And when I used the word "obviously," I was explicitly mocking how axioms are settled upon.

[Anonymous No.11252025]

>>11247119
/thread

[Anonymous No.11252041]

>>11245610
Someone care to explain wtf is even going on here?

[Anonymous No.11252053]

define 1 to be the natural number n, such that n + n = 2.

[Anonymous No.11253453]

I asked the alien intelligence that is involuntarily moving my neck if one plus one equals two and they nodded my head yes so it is confirmed.

[Anonymous No.11253474]

>>11252053
Prove uniqueness.