Notices
Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: how to prove 1+1=2?

  1. #1 how to prove 1+1=2? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    61
    how can we prove 1+1=2?we all know that one is one,and two is two,so what we should prove is either"+" or "=".
    i choose to accept the "=",and prove the"+".
    So if we define add as to keep parts as individuals and also to see them as a whole in the same time,will this prove?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: how to prove 1+1=2? 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by allenyuang
    how can we prove 1+1=2?we all know that one is one,and two is two,so what we should prove is either"+" or "=".
    i choose to accept the "=",and prove the"+".
    So if we define add as to keep parts as individuals and also to see them as a whole in the same time,will this prove?
    1+1=2

    turns out to be a definition. It is basically the first step in the definition of "+" that occurs when constructing the arithmetic of the integers from the Peano Axioms.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    92
    I can confirm that I have verified the result using a calculator.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Bangalore, Karnataka
    Posts
    21
    I think 2 is not in itself an independent entity. What really is meant by 2 is a unit and another unit (1+1). Similarly 3 means a unit, another unit and yet another unit (1+1+1). All numbers are basically meant to be human instruments that describe our concepts of collections of unities. Therefore, we dint find that 1+1 and 2 are of the same measure, but that, we named 1+1 to be 2, or in other words, we defined 2 as 1 + 1. So 1+1=2 is not a result but a definition. If it is a definition, the question of proving it doesnt make any sense.
    J Rahman,
    Christ University,
    Bangalore, India.
    Ph. +91 8867681098
    (Visit my blog here and also find me on Facebook)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by J Rahman
    I think 2 is not in itself an independent entity. What really is meant by 2 is a unit and another unit (1+1). Similarly 3 means a unit, another unit and yet another unit (1+1+1). All numbers are basically meant to be human instruments that describe our concepts of collections of unities. Therefore, we dint find that 1+1 and 2 are of the same measure, but that, we named 1+1 to be 2, or in other words, we defined 2 as 1 + 1. So 1+1=2 is not a result but a definition. If it is a definition, the question of proving it doesnt make any sense.
    That is correct.

    It is also a definition that 2+1 = 3.

    But when you go through the development of arithmetic starting from the Peano ?Axioms there is actually something to prove that 1+2 = 3 (i.e. that (1+1)+1 = 1+ (1+1) ).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Sophomore schiz0yd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Warwick, RI
    Posts
    171
    you can prove this through algebra. 1+ x = 2. 2-1=1. 1 = 1. x = 1. 1+1=2.
    I prefer to use my right brain to study the universe rather than my left brain.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    No you can't. Algebra is built on the definitions that 1+1=2, 1+2=3, etc. So trying to prove it by algebra would be circular.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    No you can't. Algebra is built on the definitions that 1+1=2, 1+2=3, etc. So trying to prove it by algebra would be circular.
    absolutely right.

    In fact the algebraic properties of commutivity and associativity are a result of the construction of the number systems, so you have to to have that development in place before you can even talke sensibly about algebra.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Sophomore schiz0yd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Warwick, RI
    Posts
    171
    if you don't know the definition of 1 or 2, isn't that effectively trying to prove x+x=y?
    I prefer to use my right brain to study the universe rather than my left brain.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by schiz0yd
    if you don't know the definition of 1 or 2, isn't that effectively trying to prove x+x=y?
    no

    If you don't know the definition of 1 or 2 this is gibberish.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Sophomore schiz0yd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Warwick, RI
    Posts
    171
    Sorry DrRocket, I respect your knowledge and all, but I'm pretty sure the main concept of a variable is something that is has not been defined.
    I prefer to use my right brain to study the universe rather than my left brain.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by schiz0yd
    Sorry DrRocket, I respect your knowledge and all, but I'm pretty sure the main concept of a variable is something that is has not been defined.
    Then you are certainly wrong.

    A variable is nothing more and nothing less than a symbol that stands for some member of some set that has been defined at the outset of the definition of a problem.

    If you don't have a definition for whatever variable that you are using the you are talking nonsense.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13 "1+1=2"? 
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,279
    Before I go research the Peano Axioms, I would like to guess at the nature of this conversation. From my latest studies and using the context of the conversation I guess that;

    2 IS NOT = 2

    2 = 1+1

    1 = 1

    (1+1)(1) = 1+1

    (1+1+1)1 = 1+1+1

    (1+1)(1+1) = 1+1+1+1

    (1+1)(1+1)+1 = 1+1+1+1+1

    (1+1+1)(1+1) = 1+1+1+1+1+1

    1-1x = x-1

    x(1+1+1) = 3x

    Either, I have a deep understanding of a very basic concept, or I am a fool making scratches in dirt. I really don't have the formal math training to make that judgement. If I've "created" something, I call it "Very Discreet Math".

    Thank you for your consideration. 8)
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Right track, but the details are a little off. It goes more like:

    2 = 1+1
    3 = 1+2 = 1+(1+1)
    4 = 1+3 = 1+(1+(1+1))
    .
    .
    .

    Getting to 4 = 2+2 requires some more work.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Sophomore schiz0yd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Warwick, RI
    Posts
    171
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by schiz0yd
    Sorry DrRocket, I respect your knowledge and all, but I'm pretty sure the main concept of a variable is something that is has not been defined.
    Then you are certainly wrong.

    A variable is nothing more and nothing less than a symbol that stands for some member of some set that has been defined at the outset of the definition of a problem.

    If you don't have a definition for whatever variable that you are using the you are talking nonsense.
    so i think i understand now. are you saying that in 2+x = 3, the definition of x would be x=3-2? i was thinking that variables that you would have to solve for would be considered undefined, but now i'm assuming that the rest of the problem would act as the definition?
    I prefer to use my right brain to study the universe rather than my left brain.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Right track, but the details are a little off. It goes more like:

    2 = 1+1
    3 = 1+2 = 1+(1+1)
    4 = 1+3 = 1+(1+(1+1))
    .
    .
    .

    Getting to 4 = 2+2 requires some more work.
    4=1+(1+(1+1)=((1+1)+(1+1))=(1+1)+(1+1)=2+2
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    You're using associativity without proving it exists. If you're starting that far back, it's not a given.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,279
    Ah yes, I have mucked up Mr Peano's axioms with algebra. But isn't the use of the distributive property in conjunction with caveperson hashmarks interesting? Okay, it stops being interesting when expressing any amount greater than ten or so. Although it is interesting to view all numbers above one as set's of polyreplicates of a single entity, it is very inefficient.

    Now, are there proofs for the concepts of successor(addition by 1), set, and the number zero, assumed in Mr Peano's axioms? Is there a mathematical proof for the concept of 1, or have we then wandered inextricably into a realm of circular philosophy? 8)
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil
    Now, are there proofs for the concepts of successor(addition by 1), set, and the number zero, assumed in Mr Peano's axioms? Is there a mathematical proof for the concept of 1, or have we then wandered inextricably into a realm of circular philosophy? 8)
    The Peano Axioms, or more formally the Zermelo Fraenkel axioms are axioms, hence the name. There is no proof of axioms. Since they allow one to construct arithmetic, one can apply Godel's theorems and also conclude that it is not possible to prove, using only the axioms and formal logic, that they are consistent.

    Moreover, one does not prove concepts. One proves theorems, and there is a big difference. A concept is usually a definition, and definitions doe not require proof. Only statements regarding concepts require proof. Such statements are called theorems.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Also, I should add that when doing things like calculus there's an implicit "assuming the Peano axioms" (or some equivalent set of axioms) at the beginning of every proof. It's just that you rarely see it explicitly since you wouldn't be able to do much of anything without it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Also, I should add that when doing things like calculus there's an implicit "assuming the Peano axioms" (or some equivalent set of axioms) at the beginning of every proof. It's just that you rarely see it explicitly since you wouldn't be able to do much of anything without it.
    Essentially ALL of mathematics, unless explicity stated otherwise, assumes the Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms plus the axiom of choice. The Peano axioms are less formal, but the content is included in ZF.

    You never see this stated in most cases, but it is correct, and the reason that you never see it stated is that ZF plus choice is universally accepted in the mathematics community.

    The only exceptions are some arcane studies in symbolic logic, and the constructivist school of Errett Biship, which assumes ZF but does not assume the axiom of choice. But any tme you see anyone using even ordinary first-grade arithmetic, you can be sure that the Peano axioms or something equivalent have been assumed. You can't do addition of natural numbers, or even counting, without them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Bangalore, Karnataka
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Essentially ALL of mathematics, unless explicity stated otherwise, assumes the Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms plus the axiom of choice. The Peano axioms are less formal, but the content is included in ZF.
    What is the axiom of choice? What does that mean? Please enlighten me.
    J Rahman,
    Christ University,
    Bangalore, India.
    Ph. +91 8867681098
    (Visit my blog here and also find me on Facebook)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by J Rahman
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Essentially ALL of mathematics, unless explicity stated otherwise, assumes the Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms plus the axiom of choice. The Peano axioms are less formal, but the content is included in ZF.
    What is the axiom of choice? What does that mean? Please enlighten me.
    It is the axiom that given any set of non-empty sets there is a function that assigned to each set a member of that set.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_choice

    To most people this appears to be obvious, but it has implications that are not all obvious, and in fact seem paradoxical.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banach-Tarski_paradox
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •