#Prove that 1+1=2 without using any math

1 messages · Page 2 of 1

dire helm
#

this thing is so old

#

1000 messages

tough sparrow
#

War crime

#

End this thread

dark ginkgo
#

No, this thread will never die

last hatch
#

Thank you fans!

#

There will be a test at the end

#

fortunately for you there shall be NO END

#

because I checked with a philosophy group and found out that there are different kinds of One & Many

#

then we are going to conduct a series of physical experiments

#

we are going to ask whether math is emperical to physics, or physics is empirical to math

#

I should not be very difficult to follow

#

I am beginning with some warranted premises

#

1st, that math evolved

#

so 1 + 1 = 2 is a product of evolutionary processes

#

Then, math evolved out of ideas

#

what are some of the most primitive and general ideas?

#

1 + 1 = 2 is a great starting point for many historical & modern ideas in philosophy

#

mathematical philosophy is born

#

we could also use this to develop a sort of musical philosophy

#

maybe

#

I'm just an imaginitive artist

#

not a mathemetician

#

I'm as surprised as you are that I am here

#

I just thought the topic title was excellent

#

and I agree with others here that this topic should live for the life of the server

#

it's a very humbling experience

#

little ol' 1 + 1 = 2

#

will topple the greatest minds on this server and beyond

#

you might as well try to square the circle as prove that 1 + 1 = 2

#

AI cannot do it either

#

they are programmed for 1 + 1 = 2

#

like most of the world's human population

#

you are just programmed for it

#

the idea of seriously examining what is being said drives you bonkers

#

at least you guys are talking pi

#

that's at least periphereal though tangent to the subject

#

oh wait that goees in the 360 thread

tough sparrow
#

stop for the love of gof

#

god

brave aurora
#

blud was YA-PP-IN

#

Y-A-P-P-I-N-G

#

did someone order a yappucino, perchance?

tough sparrow
#

5000 word thesis 💀

indigo vapor
#

@last hatch can you compile everything you are saying and have said in this thread to a single document?

#

It would be more coherent and easier to digest thanks!

tough sparrow
last hatch
#

agreed

#

I'm just doing this for entertainment

copper thistle
#

the voices

last hatch
#

the voices

#

If someone will compile this, I'll write a doc

#

I'll revise all of it

#

I don't know if it's worth it

#

it's not scholarly research

#

however, we could develop this into something more scholarly

#

we need a lot more facts

#

and I don't have a thesis statement

#

I'm all over the place

#

I don't know what I'm trying to say

#

I'm pretty sure that the quastion just sparked a lot of thought about the ancient history of math

#

so it's not math, per se

#

but the history of math

#

but that's a really good way for us to learn more math

#

this whole thing about the sexagesimal system meeting the decimal system intrigues me

#

who was it?

#

they must have been bordering civilizations?

#

two bordering cultures

#

here's an idea

#

spose that they were very isolated from eachother

#

and each expanded outwards until they touched eachother

#

relatively speaking

#

they each got bigger and bigger until their ideas crossed over

#

wait a minte

#

this belongs in the 360 thread

#

OOPs

#

That's what I get for monopolizing two threads at once

#

OK

#

we are talking about 1 + 1

#

yeah either way I don't know what I'm talking about

#

OK what is the take away from what I've said?

#

you tell me

#

I'm not even done with 1 + 1 = 2 yet

#

No one here has yet defined the number 1

#

we have not even gotten started

#

Go ahead and try it

#

If there is any takeaway that I would want you to get

#

it is that it's ok to think

#

just think of something

#

what is 1?

#

it's an idea

#

can we agree upon that?

#

what idea(s) are in 1?

#

if there is more than one idea in 1 we are already in trouble

#

we need to make strict accounts of the term 1

#

someone says that one and many are the same thing

#

well if that is so then why do we need to add anything to 1 in the first place?

#

if the objective is to produce many

#

from 1

#

now I see that my greatest mistep here was in not conducting this as a Socratic dialogue. Maybe the OP can retreive control over the topic?

#

just ask quations about the terms used in teh mqin quastion

#

the main question

#

let's see if the OP can elicit some kind of response

#

I think there's a solution to this

#

In 1 + 1 we have what they call individual discrete objects

#

that's on one side of the equation

#

on the other side is 2

#

2 individual discrete objects

#

input = output

#

we have only changed the label on them

#

that's all that unites them

#

BUT they are still the same individual discrete objects

#

so no unification has occurred

#

what has undergone a process of unification here?

#

IF unification had occurred we would have 1 + 1 = 1

#

just as if I had added 1 drop of water to 1 drop of water

#

i would not get two drops of water

#

but one drop of water

last hatch
#

I want everyone to conduct this experiment in Lab

#

wear your goggles and gloves

#

take two drops of water and add them together

#

what is the resulting number?

#

and what is the cause?

#

someone DMed me and suggested takling 1L of water and adding 1L of ethanol to it

#

now what happens?

#

why?

last hatch
#

If we can master the ideas in this book, I think we will have a good understanding of the operation of addition

#

there are lots of ways to conoin things

#

conjoin

#

in the case of adding 1L of water to 1L of ethanol we get less than 2L of solution

#

but note that all I did there was to reclassify them into a higher ranking order called "solution"

#

I regrouped the objects into a higher catagory

#

1 apple + 1 orange = how many apples and oranges?

#

the only way to add them together is to relabel them as fruits

#

nothing was physically joined together as the two drops of water

#

it is significant that in some cases the items are heterogenous and in others they are homogenous

#

as in the case of ethanol and water

#

according to Viete heterogenous terms do not affect each other

#

but that is a matematical concept

#

I am asking from also a ohysics point of view

#

physics

#

now should math be empirical to physical fact?

#

or should physical experiement stand as empiriacl in the face of mathematics?

#

mathematics is an imaginery construct - a work of the imagination

#

physical experiment seems to be closer to what we would call truth

#

if I breed dogs and add one dog with another dog and get one dog, a composite of those two dogs

#

how many dogs are there?

#

there is one dog

#

or we could say that there are 3 dogs because the two original dogs are still present

#

1 + 1 = 1

#

or 1 + 1 = 3

#

results that are in accordance with physical experiment

#

1 + 1 = 2 does not apply

#

what happens when we add 1L of water with 1L of ethanol?

#

this is a case of heterogenous substances

#

yet they affect each other contrary to the mathematical statement of Viete

#

and they produce less than 2L of solution

#

and we had to recatagorize them by dropping their former labels of "water" and "ethanol"

#

and combine them into a new catagory

#

"solution"

#

so now we are trying to define the + sign in 1 + 1

#

someone might say "math is math and physics is physics"

#

IDK

#

why use math in physics then?

#

why develop new maths for the frequent dilemmas of physics?

#

just take all of the math out of physics

#

and keep the physics people away from the math people

#

who started this anyway?

#

what came first? math or physics?

#

it must have been math

#

math can be practiced without physics

#

if we abolished physics we wuld not abolish math with it

#

but if we abolished math, we would abolish physics along with it

#

therefore math is prior and physics is posterior

copper thistle
#

i used clay balls instead of water

last hatch
#

so you were thinking of this mathematical problem while manipulating a physical medium?

#

or did the manipulation of the physical medium generate the ideas?

#

it's astounding that math - a work of the human imagination - should have such profound effects upon physics

copper thistle
#

started from addition yeah

last hatch
#

I don't know if they can be separated

#

in my earlier examples I depicted primivive humans developing math while manipulating physical objects

#

and math is taught in association with objects

#

we need physics to stimulate new math

#

where do ideas fit in this?

#

and what are the ideas?

#

What do you think?

#

It seems like math is always a little bit ahead of physics, no?

#

Einstein and Planck did not dream up entirely new orders for the universe without prior knowledge of math

dire helm
#

what the fuck

last hatch
#

doesn't it drive yuh nuts?

restive mortar
last hatch
#

OK so now we are on the meaning of the operation of addition

#

otherwise known as the "plus" sign

#

or +

#

here's a tickler

#

the word plus comes from the word plu

#

plu means many

#

it's the root of the words plus and plural

#

so

#

many is an idea presented before the operation has been completed

#

the idea of many is present in the number 2

#

so either there are more ideas in the symbols for many

#

or it is a redundancy

#

because it would be a request or command for us to many-ize 1 + 1

#

now that makes sense

#

because 1's are suposed to be discrete units

#

and are not suposed to be many

#

2 is many

#

but it is produced by the many-ization of the unit

#

but I would think that the way to the many-ization of the unit would be through division

#

sorry

#

at the time of this mathematical development 1 could not be divided

#

another option is that it is NOT asking us to many-ization of the unit

#

but it would seem so by the use of plu

#

they may not have had this word or the root for any other word associated with it

#

I just think it's an interesting take

#

more than interesting because the original meaning notwithstanding,

#

the modern use of plu in the reference to addition may have altered it's original intent

#

if we admit the other word plural it is asking us to pluralize the input

#

so that the output is many

#

this is a problem also

#

the input already appears to be plural 1 + 1

#

that's 1's (plural)

#

but the output on the right hand side of the equation is singular

#

hmmm

#

YEAH

#

TERE MAY BE A CLUE TO THIS NOW

#

The left side input is plural and the right side output is singular

#

ha!

#

that's the opposite of what I first thought about this equation

#

remember I said that the 1 represented the ONE

#

and the 2 represented the MANY

#

so the equation could be reduced to ONE = MANY

#

but now we are faced with an inversion

#

because if we consider that the left hand side is already plural

#

and the right hand side, the output is singular

#

then MANY = ONE

#

that is why I began with looking at ONE & MANY

#

though I had no conscious objective in mind to arrive at such a conclusion

#

From the essay on UNIVERSAL & PARTICULAR:

#

"In the chapter on ONE AND MANY, the question takes the form of asking how two or more
things can be one in any way. Again, both science and common sense seem able to deal
with an infinite number of individuals by applying a single name to them or apprehending them
all under a single concept or notion. But it may be asked what justifies the denomination of
many things by one name. What unity in the things verifies the tendency of thought
to unify them conceptually? Does a real unity exist in things, by virtue of their being somehow one
as well as many, or as a result of the many somehow participating in a one which exists
separately from them?"

#

and there would seem to be some controversy about the existence of disrete objects

#

and even the existence of matter

#

no one has yet argued in favor or against the notion of discrete objects

#

Berkeley is against the idea of matter

#

you might want to read Locke, Berkeley and Hume

copper thistle
#

:>

brave aurora
#

bro yapped again

#

for the second time

#

😭

dire helm
#

What in the adhd is this

indigo vapor
#

i feel like this was secretly their thesis or something and now they finally have an excuse to talk abt it

tough sparrow
#

Blud gonna get a phd in 1+1=2🔥

last hatch
#

then there is no one answer to 1 + 1 = _?

#

in decimal 1 + 1 = 10

#

someone wrote to me and said that in some physics 1 + 1 = 0

#

this is in the case of 1 particle being asdd to an anti-particle or something like that

#

some of you might know better than I

#

I would argue that the equation is poorly expressed

#

it should read -1 + 1 = 0

#

and that is standard

dark ginkgo
last hatch
#

what about this physical experiment with 1L of water added to 1L of ethanol?

#

any comments

#

?

#

1L of water + 1L of ethanol = less than 2L of solution

#

1 + 1 = <2

#

and 1 drop of water + 1 drop of water = 1 drop of water

#

1 + 1 = 1

#

what do you say about this?

last hatch
#

What about the history of 1 + 1 = 2?

#

"The concept of 1 + 1 = 2 predates recorded history. The idea of counting and simple arithmetic likely arose from early humans' need to keep track of quantities, such as counting possessions or keeping track of days."

#

"Formal systems of mathematics that explicitly stated 1 + 1 = 2 developed much later. Egyptians, Babylonians, and Greeks all had numeral systems and methods for performing calculations, but their mathematics wasn't based on axioms and theorems in the way modern math is."

#

"An interesting fact: Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead, in their famous work Principia Mathematica (1910), attempted to build all of mathematics from logic using axioms and theorems. One of the things they sought to prove was 1 + 1 = 2, which gives you a sense of the depth and rigor they were aiming for!"

#

I believe Frege was also trying to prove that 1 + 1 = 2

#

it drove him to the nuthouse, is what I heard

dire helm
#

what in the

restive mortar
#

what the yapping

brave aurora
#

"Yappology Post Grad."

image.png
#

"Mr. Yappamasta"

#

totally unedited

restive mortar
last hatch
#

Da Yappamasta hab entered da room

#

thank you fans

dire helm
maiden raft
#

@last hatch what did you master in?

dire helm
tough sparrow
dark ginkgo
#

Best yapologist I’ve ever seen

tough sparrow
#

By a margin

dire helm
#

Phd in yaplogy, side job in adhd

brave aurora
#

he came from Yappistan

tough sparrow
#

Yappreich!

last hatch
#

I ma 99 years old. I am still in te 1st grade, dey wont let me go to 2nd til I say 1 + 1 = 2

#

but i wont say it!

prime spire
#

Whose gonna tell him?

last hatch
#

I'm reading in the philosophy of math

#

it seem that objects are not needed for the development of math and counting

#

you can count ideas

#

any bconception of opposing ideas or divisions of ideas could lead to math

#

check out husserl

#

philosophy of arithmetic

royal crane
#

WITHOUT USING MATHS MY FRIEND, MATHS IS NOT COMPLETE... MATHS IS THE KEY OF MATH I KNOW ITS HARD TO UNDERSTAND BUT GIVE IT A TRY..

copper thistle
#

math is plural itself

indigo vapor
#

no the word is maths

#

although perhaps math's would be more correct as it is the abbreviation of "mathematics"

#

math would be the abbreviation of "mathematic" or perhaps "mathematical"

dire helm
#

Maths

#

Math

#

same thing

indigo vapor
#

no they are not

copper thistle
#

and without it sounding stupid

indigo vapor
#

unless you have a speech disorder or something

indigo vapor
#

to me, simply saying "math" instead of "maths" sounds stupid

#

so i believe we can chalk that up to familiarity

dire helm
#

you just have a hss sound

indigo vapor
#

"good luck pronouncing math without having it sound like mat"

dire helm
#

fr

copper thistle
indigo vapor
#

ew american english

#

use english english

copper thistle
#

muths

#

either way these two videos prove my point

indigo vapor
#

no they dont

#

th and t are pretty distinct sounds

copper thistle
#

Not with the s

#

at the end

indigo vapor
#

how

#

what

copper thistle
#

th and t are easily distinguishable but imo ths and ts are nearly the same

indigo vapor
#

how does the s change it

#

that makes no sense

#

"1 and 2 look distinct but imo 10 and 20 are nearly the same"

copper thistle
#

cuz when you're pronouncing s you're still having more of the edge of your tongue touching the top of your mouth

#

which is similar in the case of ths

indigo vapor
#

no

#

the s in maths sounds more sharp often

#

because of the continuous motion

copper thistle
#

and behind your teeth

#

which is still similar to ths

#

https://youtu.be/o8fLG-e-LyA?si=XaF0csXQ9fbjmtTa

YouTube
Ellen Frank Speech Therapy
HOW TO SAY THE "S" SOUND SPEECH THERAPY + FAST RESULTS!

Website: https://www.ellenfrankspeechtherapy.com/?utm_source=Youtube&utm_medium=Youtube&utm_campaign=Youtube+Link

Check out my website or send me an email if you are interested in private speech therapy sessions with me and you are in the state of Maryland.

If you are wondering how to fix a lisp and how to say the "S" sound perfectly, stay t...

▶ Play video
#

plus maths just sounds stupid in general

indigo vapor
copper thistle
#

a majority would agree

indigo vapor
#

a majority of what?

#

americans?

copper thistle
#

people

#

make a poll I dare you

indigo vapor
#

the poll place dhere would be biased

copper thistle
#

how?

indigo vapor
#

what variables would affect whether or not it would be perceived that way?

copper thistle
#

there's literally more Indians in this server than americans

indigo vapor
#

i would predict which is more familiar

copper thistle
#

exactly

indigo vapor
copper thistle
#

i do not know

#

but that would be a good test

maiden raft
#

ganit

indigo vapor
#

If a poll were to be made, it would have to include the detail of which is more familiar to them, math or maths

#

And then we count the results which contradict that

copper thistle
#

just ask which sounds more comfortable

indigo vapor
#

And scale the to each other

indigo vapor
copper thistle
#

isn't that what we're here for

#

which sounds better

indigo vapor
#

To me, maths is more comfortable, to you, math is more comfortable

copper thistle
#

which sounds more comfortable

indigo vapor
#

When I hear "math" and don't get the s at the end, it makes me uncomfortable because I was expecting it

copper thistle
#

as long as it provides a more efficient path in communication I believe it's also comfortable

indigo vapor
#

So o think math sounds stupid

copper thistle
#

and vice versa

#

though that's not true in all cases

indigo vapor
#

Using math for the adjective and maths as the noun is more efficient

#

Because now you can distinguish them

#

A distinct abbreviation for mathematical

#

Vs none

copper thistle
#

"i like maths"
oh I like mats too they're soft and make me warm

indigo vapor
#

Clearly the former is more efficient

indigo vapor
copper thistle
#

be honest with yourself

indigo vapor
#

Math has fewer syllables than mathematical

#

I mean

copper thistle
#

maths and mats have nearly identical pronounciation

#

don't make this complicated

indigo vapor
#

Similar but not similar enough that one could confuse the two

#

I have never observed an instance of that occuring

#

Which anecdotally validates my stance

copper thistle
indigo vapor
#

Yes

copper thistle
#

And people don't just say they like mats

#

mats are for the foot

indigo vapor
#

So it doesn't matter anyway?

copper thistle
#

feet

#

to be stepped on

copper thistle
indigo vapor
#

I disagree

copper thistle
#

plus the s just adds more effort into pronouncing

#

waste of energy

indigo vapor
#

It really isnf

#

It's just a slight detour on the return stroke

copper thistle
#

imagine having to keep your tongue up right after you just put it there so you can make a hiss sound after

#

truly fucked up

#

royally fucked up

indigo vapor
#

Is that sarcasm or r u being dramatic

#

I can't tell

copper thistle
#

shakespeare would kill himself

#

if he heard about this

indigo vapor
#

Hey, speaking of dead English, yknow what we do need to bring back?

#

"Thou"

#

It distinguishes reference between an individual and a group

copper thistle
#

ill need to think about that more ive not had many problems with "you"

dire helm
#

how

#

how did we go from 1+1 lore, to weaponised adhd, to shakespear

#

am i in a fever dream

indigo vapor
copper thistle
#

i see

#

i mean you can still use it and people would understand

#

it's an optional thing now

#

sounds cooler too

#

go to a mat fetishist and tell him "do the maths"

#

you would make their day

#

in alot of countries they could prevent getting sued because of misunderstanding the word

#

it im pretty sure semen stains can be cleaned from the materials that make up mats and so it's not exactly damaged property

#

but what do I know about law am i right

indigo vapor
dark ginkgo
indigo vapor
#

Tbf, I should have expected this from a "coitus master"

copper thistle
#

even if you did win the lawsuit, they can't un"do the maths"

#

your best friend goes to jail and your maths are covered with their calculations

#

it's a lose lose situation

#

all because you added an s at the end of math

indigo vapor
#

Your imagination is a weird place man

dire helm
#

lol

dark ginkgo
#

This channel is wild

copper thistle
# indigo vapor Your imagination is a weird place man

everytime each and every single one of your family member steps on one of your carpets you would only be struck in the head by the picture of that innocent mat connoisseur experiencing freedom they've never felt before

#

heck if you never knew they did "do your maths" a bunch of people would have had sticky feet until someone noticed what the fluid comprised of (if it's still wet) and took a dna sample

#

all because you added an s at the end of math

tough sparrow
#

This channel lmao

last hatch
#

maths

#

maths is plural

#

maffs

last hatch
#

abolish 1 and 2 and there is no 10 and 20

#

it's called representation or analogy

last hatch
#

specifists

last hatch
last hatch
#

"I wot not"

#

"thou knowest not what though wot?"

#

"I durst not think on it!"

#

"I wouldst that thou wert wont to will it"

#

specialfists

dire helm
#

oh its the weapon again

#

The US miltary should hire this guy

last hatch
#

the idea is to be totally immersed in the experience of 1 + 1 = 2

last hatch
#

Been thinking about this and it seems likely (to me anyway)

#

that the first number was not 1 or 2 but 3

#

and that both 1 and 2 were perhaps derived form 3

#

wshy?

#

because if we take as our premise (and I'm not committed to this premise)

#

that numbers came into being from the placing of stones or other objects into shapes and patterns

#

i can't see much in the way of shapes that can be gotten from 1 stone or two stones

#

the most basic shape will be the equilateral triangle

#

so i think 3, 4 and 5 were the first number

#

2 was derived from the side of 3

#

the triangle 3 has a side of 2

#

just place 3 peas or beans or pebbles in a symetrical shape on your table

#

that will be the equilateral triangle

#

and count the number in each side

#

2 is the side of 3

#

3 is the side of 6

#

4 is the side of 10

#

...

#

my point is that 2 is derived from 3

#

counting objects

#

in shapes

#

requires that 3 be the 1st number to have come into being

#

1 must have taken 5000 or 10000 years to concieve

#

it's that complicated

#

there's nothing to go on

#

however, it is not neccesary that objects be counted

#

ideas can be counted

#

all we need then is any opposing ideas

#

to produce the number 2

#

like right & left

#

up & down

#

god & man

#

reality & dream

#

life & death

#

any of these pairs of ideas could have led to the formulation of the concept of 2

#

good & evil

#

same & other

#

singular & plural

#

well singular is 1

#

anyway

#

2 can be derived from our two hands

#

two arms

#

two eyes

#

the bilateral form of most organisms

#

well these are objects

#

not everything I listed was a physical object

#

i was thinking of objects of thought

#

ideas

#

i came to this math forum because I wanted to know if 1 + 1 = 2

#

i was going to post Does 1 + 1 = 2?

#

and hope that I would not be banned

#

instead i looked it up first

#

i searched for 1 + 1 and got led to this channel

#

some brilliant mind had already thought of the topic

#

but they phrased it differently

#

the title is Prove that 1 + 1 = 2 without using any math

#

But that is just the same as asking Does 1 + 1 = 2?

#

because if it cannot be proven then there is no reason to accept it

#

and if it can be proven that is reason to accept it

#

if it can be proven not to be true then we must reject it

#

all physical experiemnt seems to support any number other than 2 on the output of the equation

#

physical evidence seems to support 1 + 1 = 1

#

in other examples it equalled 0 (that was a poor expression of a physical experiment)

#

in another it was less that 2 (in the case of 1L water + 1L of ethanol)

#

so our taskis still to prove that 1 + 1 = 2 without the use of math

#

i take this to mean no oter math or possible no higher math

#

what did the OP mean?

#

because i would like to go ahead and see if I can prove that 1 + 1 = 2 in spite of physical evidence

#

but I must be able to at least use the math provided in the equation itself

#

is this a fair and acceptable request?

#

and I will try to rely upon logic since math is a species of logic

#

and i will try to avoid circular arguments or tautologies

#

WAIT

#

it may only be that my mind was overtaken with some delerious fit

#

some delusion that i can prove that 1 + 2 = 2

#

I have to begin with a disclaimer

#

i don't think it can be proven

#

but I think I acn explain what it means

#

that might help

last hatch
#

some delusion that i can prove that 1 + 2 = 2

#

CORRECTION

#

some delusion that i can prove that 1 + 1 = 2

#

I think I got too excited about 1 + 1 = 2

#

I couldn't even type straight

last hatch
#

1st, if 3 was the first number

#

and 2 was derived from the side of triangle 3

#

then 1 could have been derived from physical experiment

#

physical experiment challenges Russell's idea that 1 took some huge leap of mental power

#

i simply put 2 things together and 1 is born

#

3 is the origin of 2

#

and 2 is the origen of 1

#

if i have 1 lump of iron and another lump of iron

#

i can melt them down and mix them and get 1 lump of iron

#

1 + 1 = 1

#

as I said in the beginning

#

then 1 is derived from 2

#

in accordance with physical fact

#

next I want to demonstrate that 1 + 1 = 2 as a work of imagination

marsh cloak
#

what the fuck

dire helm
marsh cloak
#

wwhat

#

how can you keep yapping so much about an ill-defined question

dire helm
#

what a great milestone

sacred tapir
#

so 0.5 x 2 = 1 so 0.5 + 0.5 + 0.5 +0.5 = 4

restive mortar
marsh cloak
#

L

restive mortar
#

yeah

last hatch
last hatch
#

and there just happen to be a lot of interesting ways to think about it

#

now don't get me started...

indigo vapor
last hatch
#

go back to the beginning (if you were ever there in the first place)

last hatch
#

It's only 1590 posts. That's nothing. Grow some tits!

dire helm
#

oh fuck

#

we hit 1500

dire helm
last hatch
#

To continue

#

I want to turn full time to look at the operation of addition in 1 + 1 = 2

#

This part of the discussion is about the + sign

#

Now it seems to me that this operation could be derived from the placing of stones in shapes

#

so that + may mean just that - giving order or shape to the content

#

this can be done physically by bringing objects into spacial order such as the formation of triangles or squares

#

and/or it can be an operation of the imagination - bringing images into relations

#

I can have the objects i front of me or I can produce images of objects in my mind

#

I can also work with pure objects of thought - ideas

#

I want to explain some of these types of thought processes

#

it's very simple for me to imagine one drop of water and another drop of water together in my mind

#

and I can bring them together and combine them into one drop

#

but I can probably only do this because I have seen it happen in the physical world

#

the question is whether I could perform this exercise had I not witnessed it first in the laboratory

#

what about physical object which are known to not result in an output of 1?

#

Such as 2 dogs

#

or 2 apples

#

what does it mean to add two dogs together?

#

or two appes?

#

apples

#

well, when I add two apppes in my imagination I have not added apples at all

ivory relic
#

This is a waste of time, please stop wasting your time

last hatch
#

I have added images of apples

#

what is an image of an object

#

such as an apple?

#

spose I have an apple and I take a picture of it

#

and spose I make copies of this photo and place them side by side on a wall or on your screen

#

how many apples is that?

#

Is it one apple that I took a photo of?

#

or is it two apples?

#

Seems to me that we have one apple

#

but two images of that one and the selfsame apple

#

SO we are looking at these two images side by side and I ask you "How many apples are there?"

#

what will be your answer?

#

If you asked me the question I think I would immediatley say "There are two apples"

#

They are not two apples

#

they are two images of one apple

#

now that is how the mind can work

#

it works not with apples but images of apples

#

if you ask me to imagine two apples in my mind

#

I am likely to imagine two generic apples

#

the same apples

#

or we could say two images of one generic apple

#

then what is it to add these images together

#

in all cases whether physical or imaginery

#

the input and output of the equation are the same

#

in 1 dog + 1 dog = 2 dogs

#

two dogs were there at the start and we end with two dogs

#

so we are after the meaning of addition

#

that is the objective now

#

1 image of 1 generic dog + 1 image of one generic dog = 2 images of one and the selfsame dog?

#

then there are 2 images but 1 dog

#

if it's a generic dog

#

you might want to supply images of 2 different kinds of dogs

#

that is another case

#

but it's easy to see how 1 + 1 could = 2

#

or 1 + 1 could = 1

#

how could 1 + 1 = 1?

#

we talked about catagories before

#

I think the key point is that 2 items could be combineed under 1 label

#

so 2 is a single label for 1 + 1 objects

#

this is where the addition has occurred

#

Are there any questions concerning the OP or anything that I have said up to this point?

#

If you have been talking math, you are not blocked

#

feel free to discourse upon this and ask questions

#

there is a lifetime of learning to be had from the main question

restive mortar
last hatch
#

I thnk that's about all I want to say on this

dire helm
last hatch
#

but I may have missed something

#

I have a feeling I may not have been thorough enough

#

something about abstract thinking from Locke, Berkeley and Hume?

#

It would not hurt at all to go back to the beginning of the conversation and review everything

#

leaving no stone unturned

#

we don't want to be sloppy

gritty patio
#

Toppy

last hatch
#

thank you beethoven

#

are there any questions?

#

about mathematics?

#

about 1 + 1 = 2? that glorious equation of all equations

#

don't even get me started on E=mC2

#

that's another one I have big problems with

gritty patio
last hatch
#

therefore math is a tautology?

gritty patio
#

It's tautology all the way down

civic scaffold
indigo vapor
maiden raft
dire helm
indigo vapor
#

pinned

dire helm
indigo vapor
maiden raft
#

:3

frosty scaffold
last hatch
#

Can you define 1 or the idea of ONE?

indigo vapor
#

A thing exclusive of other things

last hatch
#

how did you figure that one out?

#

To say "1" is not much different that to say "∞"

halcyon oar
#

yo rockhove

#

i am actually curious. what did you major in?

last hatch
#

If you put a bunch of ∞'s in these thread people could get the impression that you know what infinity means

last hatch
#

So we say 1 but that does not mean much

#

if we don-t know what it means

halcyon oar
last hatch
#

do such things exist?

halcyon oar
#

a thing exclusive of other things can not be exclusive of itself. hence such thinks dont exist. despair

last hatch
#

well a thing exclusive of other things would be exclusive of it's parts

#

then such things do not exist

last hatch
#

If the universe is infinite then there are no things exclusive of other things because all things are made of parts.

#

an infinite set of parts

#

in an infinite universe all things are composed of infinite sets of parts

#

That is why to use the symbol for infinity ∞ is just as ignorant as using the symbol 1 for one.

#

Do we know what we are talking about when we use the symbols 1 or ∞?

#

I mean you can post equations here that include a hundred ∞ symbols but I doubt very much that we or you understand what is being attempted to communicate.

#

My question is what are people talking about?

#

What are the ideas behind the symbols?

#

The math might be very orderly but the ideas are messy little devils.

indigo vapor
#

no thats not right\

#

if we were to say "we have 1 car"

#

the car would be a set of objects

#

but if the car were red for example

#

it would also be in the set of red things

last hatch
#

Well, now we are getting to the root of the problem.

#

When I say that in an infinite universe every single thing is composed of an infinite number of parts

#

we are either dealing with a dichotomy or an equivocation of terms

#

there is either an outright contradiction at the core of the idea or ideas

#

or an equivocation of terms between the uses of "Infinite" or "One" or "Universe" or "Compose"

#

Possibly the terms have being used in slightly different significances?

#

Those might be the best places to search the dilemma.

#

When we use any of those terms there could be alterations of meanings.

#

What does infinite mean?

#

Are there different kinds of infinity?

#

Is there linear infinity and circular infinity? Is there a spiral infinity?

#

Is there an infinity of extension and an infinity of intension?

#

Does it matter?

#

And this is math, because every time someone uses the ∞ sign in an equation we have to ask what is it's significance.

#

And it is very much like discussing the idea of the number 1.

#

As a matter of fact there is no difference.

#

So if there is someone out there who is befuddled when they see these equations pop up with ∞ in them

#

The math is really no more advanced than 1 + 1 = 2

#

and the people who are using these equations do not have the slightest understanding of what they are talking about

#

These equations appear to me to be devoid of any literal significance

#

it's nonsense

#

no one

#

no one knows what infinity is

#

so the symbol ∞ is as meaningless as the number 1

last hatch
#

In his classic book, Language, Truth and Logic, A. J. Ayer says that a statement has no literal significance if it cannot be verified through experiment and observation.

#

So a claim like "Angels can fly" makes no sense because first, there is a hidden assertion that angels exist. That is the first proposition hidden in the statement.

#

Such a statement neither can be proven nor can we even concieve of an experiment and observation that would demonstrate the existence of angels.

#

Such is the problem with One & Infinity (note that we began with the ideas of One & Many last week and now we are ready to replace those terms with One & Infinity)

#

We do not know whether infinity exists, just as we ran into trouble with the latest definition of One. Neither can we even concieve of an experience that would prove the existence of the infinite.

#

We arrive at our notions of Infinity by way of induction. We keep going further and further out into space and keep finding stuff out there, and we keep boring into particles and ejecting other particles and never get to the end of it. By induction we conclude the infinite. But ultimately it is an unverifiable abstraction, an object of thought.

#

We might as well be talking about God. The mathematician seems to be no better than a theologian.

#

So what good is the sign of infinity ∞ ?

#

If I have it on my keyboard it is a nifty bit of shorthand. We are talking about an idea that we know little about and are wasting time and energy. It is nice to have one symbol so we can save 7 of the 8 strokes that is requred to type the word infinity and just replace those 8 letters with the one symbol ∞.

#

So now we can drop talking about indfinity and just say ∞

#

and I have just graduated into the worl of higher mathematics. But it's really not anything different than having a secret decoder kit for sending secret messages to people.\

#

Instead of using 8 letters to refer to the idea of ∞ I now use one letter or symbol.

#

The same thing that was done with the invention of the numb er 1

#

we conjoined some ideas into one symbol

#

that is what the + operation signifies

#

So, since I don't know what I am talking about, I might as well use these symbols freely and let you put some interpretation to them.

#

I can say 1*∞ or 1/∞ or anything else about 1 or ∞ because I don't know what I'm saying anyway.

#

That is what makes it higher math.

#

But there is some significance if I attach some meaning to the symbols and inform you of what these symbols now represent

#

since our discussion is about One & Many, we could just agree that for this conversation that idea can be represented by the expression 1+∞

#

This reduces 10 keystrokes (including spaces between words) to 3 characters

#

If we are going to go on and on all day talking in circles about One & Many we may as well take advantage of the reduction of labor by using 1+∞

#

We have now used the operation of addition to relabel that whole phrase of three words by 1+∞

#

There is a difference though, because we did not recategorize anything.

#

Now mathematicians know the vocabulary and the grammar of math better than I do

#

so they might complain that I am not adhering to strict convention in my use of terms

#

but they miss the point. If we agree to call an apple a "peach" there is no problem as long as we agree to it

#

for a limited audience we can use terms any way we wish too

#

I am not speaking as a professional mathematician

#

I talking about logic

#

We can label objects of thought as abc or we could label them as edf

#

as long as we agree to it there is communication

#

Now with 1+∞ we can go around and around in circles all day and save time doing it!

#

Now what can we say mathematically about 1+∞?

#

Can we use any mathematical expression without reference to prose writing?

#

There has to be some explanation to give significance to E=mC2

#

You have to read the book

#

The ideas are expressed in prose

#

Einstein talks about walking across the floor of a moving train

#

He writes about falling in a box or an elevator to the earth and the experience of weightlessness

#

these are stories

#

He writes about standing at the center of two bolts of lightning that hit the earth simultaneously

#

and talks about the movement of the earth and the movement of the observer

#

this is all narative writing that eventually leads to E=mC2

#

without these narrative E=mC2 has no significance

#

so while you are running around talking equations I think it our business to ask people what they are talking about

#

and you have to be able to explain it with experience and observation

#

We can't allow people to just put out 1 or ∞ without explaining what they are talking about

#

if one person can speak gibberish allow me the same luxury, please

#

Don't get me started

last hatch
#

That was great that statement by Metactal gave us somethung to think about.

#

I'm glad you produced that

#

This is not a question of being right or wrong

#

We want ideas

#

@indigo vapor Where did you get this definition?

indigo vapor
last hatch
#

hey you are sharp!

#

That idea that you brought in help us to clarify what the issues are here

#

so I consider it to be a very important contribution

last hatch
#

no that's not serious

#

I am flabbergustered that I am writing on a math forum

#

I'm a poet

#

but I did graduate from teh 8th grade

#

and I continued my education independently

#

mainly by reading a great multitude of classic books

#

beginning with classic literature

#

and working my way through all of the greatest books that have ever been written

#

I'm a student of the history of ideas

#

I want you guys to give me some input here. If we are going to talk about One & Many or Particular & Universal or Part & Whole, would it be best to abbreviate our language by using 1+∞ or the form 1&∞ ?

#

we could also use this expression to refer to the phrase "as the whole is to the part"

#

we are going to be talking about this again when I discuss the Elements of Euclid

#

I would like to go through the first six or nine books of Euclid sometime

#

I think Euclid discusses the idea of the relation of part to whole in books 5 and 7

#

Is unity a part or the whole?

#

and is infinity a whole or a part?

#

now here an equivocation may have seeped in

#

is the part equivalent to a part?

#

and is the whole equivalent to a whole?

#

Because I altered the form when I just said "Is unity a part or the whole?

#

and then I said "and is infinity a whole or a part?"

#

the forms of the phrases were not strictly uniform

#

and I am wondering if an equivocation could occur?

#

I used the article a and the article the

#

then I dropped the in favor of a throughout the second phrase

#

A is the indefinite article

#

The is the definite article

indigo vapor
#

yeah i was concerned about using articles like "a"

#

"Something exclusive of other things" eliminates the "a" but introduces a new problem

#

the "some" in "something"

#

what is "some"?

last hatch
#

LOL

#

HEY EVERYBODY LETS PILE ON MET FER ASKING WHAT SOME MEANS!!!

#

YUK YUK YUK

#

BlaagagagGAG

#

Hey Met don be so gullible man

#

Ise trollin yuh due

#

dude

#

No but seriously

#

what is some?

#

I think that Whitehead brings that up in chapter 2 of An Introduction to Mathematics

#

So you might want to tune into that book

#

Some is a concept in logic

#

You are smart enough to ask the question

#

Have you read anything on this?

#

Wait, doesn't some have two meaning in logic?

#

I think one is exclusive and the other is inclusive

#

so it may be pertinent to your expression

#

but did you say "something"?

#

I thought that you said "A thing"

#

"A thing exclusive of other things"

#

I give you credit for being clear and concise

#

We can test both expressions, if you like

#

what was your concern with the article a ?

#

rather than the?

#

I just noticed it while I was writing those phrases about part and whole

#

but I can't put my finger on it exactly

#

sometimes you just have a hunch or intuition

#

these things are working in the recesses of the mind

#

and have yet to make appearence to the conscious self

#

If you have thoughts about this feel free to interrupt at any time

#

What was I saying?

#

Is unity a part or the whole?

#

Is unity a part or a whole?

#

Is unity the part or the whole?

#

Is infnity a part or the whole?
Is infnity a part or a whole?
Is infnity the part or the whole?

#

You might want to treat your phrases the same way and we can examine them more closely

#

I don't know if there's much difference

#

except for some doubt when I enetred those posts

#

and then you said that you doubted how you were using the language

#

Sometimes, it's best to just take note of it and continue

#

Sometimes it's best to let it gel

#

that can only happen with time

#

then it dawns on you at some unexpected moment

#

and then you go "I thought something was kiddywomkus there"

#

No wait

#

it's not some that is the big issue in logic

#

it's the word or

#

that's the one they have to clarify in basic logic, no?

#

Or is the word that can be used exclusibvely or inclusively

#

I got that mixed up with some

#

what is the issue with some ?

#

some thing is indefinite

#

I think that something sounds more definite to me

#

just by bringing the two words together

#

it's still indefinite

#

but it's relative

#

it seems to be slightly less indefinite

#

does that make sense?

#

but maybe not

#

nah

#

they're both the same?

#

I think A thing exclusive of other things works well for what you wanted to express

#

I have no idea

#

I just make up shit at the keyboard

#

anything that pops into my head

#

then I read it and see if I can make sense out of what I thought

civic scaffold
# last hatch Can you define 1 or the idea of ONE?

https://youtu.be/xCrN2jwjsSs?si=0vaZnqk83Wn6_ne- I hope you understand spanish

YouTube
Jacinto Malayo
Esto es MENTIRA

...más o menos.

En este video vemos la construcción conjuntista habitual de los conjuntos numéricos.

Participa en los #premiosemmynoether

Capítulos:
00:00 Introducción (todo es un conjunto)
03:50 Construcción de ℕ
13:02 Construcción de ℤ
23:20 Isomorfismo entre ℕ y ℤ
27:04 Construcción de ℚ
32:38 Construcción de ℝ
35:42 Construcción de ℂ
36:...

▶ Play video
indigo vapor
indigo vapor
last hatch
halcyon oar
last hatch
#

wait I'm spose to listen tosomething is spanish?

last hatch
last hatch
#

but that's easy to see from the notation

#

is there some poit that relates to 1 + 1 = 2?

#

It talks about the conjunction of sets

civic scaffold
#

He explain how to define 1 and how to define +

last hatch
#

and that is relavent to the operation of addition

#

ok

#

let's see

#

it is also labeled Esto es MENTIRA which means that the info in the vid is false.

#

It literally means This is a LIE

#

Still, let's go through the vid and see if we can uncover the falsehoods

#

he must be a good liar to be able to lie contrinuously for nearly 37 minutes

#

not as good as Mr. Trumplethinskin

#

all of the vocabulary used in the equation 1 + 1 = 2 is convention and the whole of it is convention also

#

we cannot prove a convention

#

it just is

#

like driving on the right side of the road

#

we can't prove that

#

we accept it by convention

#

there are no natural laws that inform us on this

last hatch
#

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

Infinity symbol

The infinity symbol (∞) is a mathematical symbol representing the concept of infinity. This symbol is also called a lemniscate, after the lemniscate curves of a similar shape studied in algebraic geometry, or "lazy eight", in the terminology of livestock branding.
This symbol was first used mathematically by John Wallis in the 17th century, alth...

#

This is about ∞

#

I spose if we are going to use ∞ we should know what the convention is

#

the infinity sign is conventionally interpreted as meaning that the variable grows arbitrarily large towards infinity, rather than actually taking an infinite value, although other interpretations are possible

#

it says that "other interpretations are possible" so we can use symbols any way that we like if we agree

#

still, I think it good on a math forum to use conventions just as we woild use the conventions of language, in order to facilitate communication among the maximum number of readers.

#

It looks like the usual convention is: "the variable grows arbitrarily large towards infinity, rather than actually taking an infinite value"

#

right

#

but I think that was what we were thinking anyway with infinity

#

when I imagine infinity I visualize something growing or decreasing without ever actually arriving at any value at all

#

∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞

#

the line of infinity

#

∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞

#

line of ∞ with spaces

#

then there must be a whole mess of weird ideas like:

#

can ∞ be divided?

#

can ∞ be multiplied?

#

can we add to ∞?

#

or subtract from ∞?

#

it would appear to be a tool for philosophy

#

we could also employ the term ∞ in the expression 1+∞ or 1&∞

#

to signify One & Many

#

that is where we left off yesterday

#

what about it?

last hatch
#

I think it is very important that we dicuss ∞ in this conversation because that is how long we are going to be talking about this topic.

copper thistle
#

did you talk about the number 4 yet

last hatch
#

that's coming up

#

I am thinking that we should go back to using an indivisible 1

#

Because the most consistent defintion of 1 that we seem to be getting is: A thing exclusive of other things

#

then 1 should be indivisible as it can have no parts

#

if 1 has parts it is exclusive of it's own parts

#

we are drawing out the initial problems that I introduced when I began posting in this discussion

#

the problem with 1 is the idea of One & Many

#

and it is not at all strange that we began with 1 and are now embarking upon a discussion of infinity

dire helm
#

oh my god please shut up

last hatch
#

because to go from one to infinity is the same as going from one to many

last hatch
dire helm
#

Lmfao

halcyon oar
tough sparrow
#

End this thread at once!

#

Yapincho is a powerful drug

indigo vapor
#

Lol

mystic sandBOT
#

rockhoven
Compile Error! Click the errors reaction for more information.
(You may edit your message to recompile.)

699627666319605861.png
marsh cloak
#

Schizoposting here is insane

#

$\aleph$

mystic sandBOT
#

Garry Maths

475874071482073088.png
marsh cloak
#

$\aleph_0$

mystic sandBOT
#

Garry Maths

475874071482073088.png
marsh cloak
#

Nah, I approve of schizoposting

#

Go on

mystic sandBOT
#

rockhoven

699627666319605861.png
dire helm
#

Lmao

desert raptor
#

lets say u have a drop of water, then u put another drop of water, it become a bigger water drop :)

tough sparrow
#

I bet the change in the surface area will be a multiple of 1

copper thistle
#

isn't that

#

all the numbers

mystic sandBOT
#

rockhoven

699627666319605861.png
daring remnantBOT
#

rockhoven has been timed out temporarily for 20m mute

rockhoven | 699627666319605861
last hatch
#

What can we do with the above symbol? What does it signify?

#

1/0 = $\infty$

mystic sandBOT
#

rockhoven

699627666319605861.png
last hatch
#

Can we use this now rthat infinity is part of this discussion?

last hatch
#

$\frac10=\pm\infty$

mystic sandBOT
#

rockhoven

699627666319605861.png
last hatch
#

Is this what I need for the ideas we are on now?

dark ginkgo
#

I have to write here once to get the number of replies to 2000

last hatch
#

2001

indigo vapor