Prove this to me faggots. Protip: you can't.
The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact.
Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact.
Prove this to me faggots.
Protip: you can't.
one red apple plus another one red apple equals 2 red apples.
>>684393809
That isn't a proof faggot you just assume all of those things to be true, not proving anything.
>>684394037
Prove it wrong.
>>684393223
1+1=Op is a faggot
>>684394037
yeah it is, it's from first grade plebian
I'm not even going to bother. It would be like teaching altruism to a chimp.
>>684393223
If you take one ball then add another ball to that one, you have what's on op's chin
>>684393223
It's an axiom, we assume it to be true so that all the mathematics based on it is true. A lot of things in math aren't true per say, but true within the boundaries set for them. For example, you might say it's true that a triangle has 3 angles which always add to 180 degrees, when in reality this is only true within the confines of a flat plain. It's true within a specific set of assumptions
>>684393223
1 + 1 = 11. fucken returd.
>>684394384
Then you can't say it's wrong.
So imagine you have a single concept and you took a same concept and put those together
2 is the cardinal number we assign to that groups now if we have a single one from that groups it is the cardinal number 1
And if both concepts are the same and + means to add and = means the same as
Then 1+1=2
Now this is assuming cardinals numbers are a thing and numbers are as well
Now the idea behind is that if a single thing and a single thing exists together then there are a plural of single things and in the case of a single thing and a single then then we call that 2 single things
The reason its correct is beause we decided the value of shit, if when they were coming up with this shit they decided 2+9=1 we'd all think that was correct. In conclusion it correct because your ancestors decided it was correct faggit
>>684394165
This.
The numbers and symbols you are using are the widely accepted method used by >99% of the world these days, and so if you are using the symbols 1 + 1 =, then you are following that method, and the answer is obviously 2, and it's the only possible answer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principia_Mathematica
>>684394523
per say you say?
Op this bait is genious
So simple and yet people will still argue over it
>>684393223
The Peano axioms may or may not be well-behaved
But if they are, then 2 is the definition of 1+1 and no proof is needed
go read a book
>>684393223
if n + n = 2n and
(n + 1) + (n + 1) = 2n + 2 = 2(n + 1),
then 1 + 1 = 2.
This is what is known as a strong induction proof.
>>684396128
This has actually been proven. In a book called 'Math Made Difficult". I don't understand it but math people will tell you its been done
But you aren't wrong, it is an axiom.
>>684394523
Nigga a triangle is a flat plane, even if you threw it on a 3D coordinate plane then it would still be a flat plane if you adjusted your angle.
Unless of course you're talking about a situation where you are look at a triangle on a 3D in plane from a skewed angle, and are not able to move
>>684396515
If you are looking to get down to the one-to-one correspondence, then one is the symbol and word used to describe a single unit or object such as one finger has a one-to-one correspondence to one apple.
>>684396515
Devil's advocate here
You've assumed n+n=2n, how do you know that is true? BTW n+n=2n follows from 1+1=2
Secondly, what you did is not strong induction. Not even induction. Where is the basecase?
In induction you show that the base case (when n=1) is true then you show that it is true for all n. Induction is a math tool that CANNOT be used to prove 1+1=2. You'd likely need to know that to use induction for most induction related proofs
>>684393223
The picture clearly says that one plus one is in fact two, how is the picture you posted not proof itself?
a + a = 2a
(a + a)/a = 2
(a(1 + 1))/a = 2
1 + 1 = 2
>>684396922
What about a triangle on the surface of a sphere? not very flat. This is what the other guy is referring to. The angles on a triangle add up to pi radians in euclidean space (IE flat, no curvature)
>>684396922
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_geometry
>>684397403
a+a=2a follows from 1+1=2, not the other way around.
Yes if you do know that then 1+1=2 but how do you know that a+a=2a?
>>684394566
1+1=10 you fucking retard
>>684397915
Looks like you got to define addition still
>>684397343
Is this a proof that 1+1=3?
you always get faggots that stroke there basic algebra dicks trying to look smart.
>>684397915
Explain what any of this means faggot. You don't even understand what you just posted.
>>684398229
yes
>implying that you can't just assume that 1+1=3 isn''t axiomatically true
You fucker know next to nothing
1+1 = op like to suck my cock
>>684394523
1+1=2 is not even an axiom - it's the definition of the number 2. Numbers are not the same as the symbols used to denote them.
Out of all real numbers, the symbol 1 denotes the number that satisfies the multiplicative neutral identity. The symbol 2 denotes the number obtained by adding 1 to itself. "3" referes to the number obtained by adding 1 to 2.
There's a reason I never liked pure math.
Having to proof fucking everything gets old after a while, especially if you have to proof axioms.
>>684394577
Underated kek.
>>684398777
AOOOOOOOOO TRIPS
>>684397263
Actually, you are playing the adversarial role, not devil's advocate.
Secondly, this argument on /b/ is a black hole. Please continue to fall into it while I continue with my Ph.D. in Mathematics.
Numbers are a concept. We have formed them to numerically order things in this universe. You can't prove why 1+1=2 without going back to the idea of how we created numbers. It is just how we organized the system. It is just stated that if you have one thing, and then have another, then you have two. It is just common knowledge that we have developed.
>>684400094
Be more rigorous with your dissertation than you have been here, pls
For all you lazy fucks who keep saying "why would I prove an axiom."
Well how the fuck do you know it's true? What if an axiom we had was that cheese = potato, and you just lived by it your entire life.
Because if you have 1 of something and you gain another, you will now have 2 of them.
This can be proved through experiment.
Like this anon >>684398916 was saying, don't confuse the symbol for the concept.
Prove you're not a faggot. You can't.
>>684393223
+
>>684393223
=
2 faggots
>>684394577
O Shit Mi Boii!
>>684395721
No one is arguing though. Everyone is just proving OP to be a faggot (which is a constant in all mathematical equations. )
