Is 1+1 a Provable Concept in Mathematics?

  • Thread starter lewis198
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Observation
In summary: So, if you think 1+1=2 is an observation, then you must also think that 123456789012345678+1=123456789012345679 is an observation.In summary, the conversation discusses whether 1+1 can be proven and if mathematics is a science. The conclusion is that while 1+1 can be proven from axioms and definitions, mathematics is not a science in the strict sense of being based on the scientific method. It is based on an "Idealist" philosophy of consistency, while science is based on a "Realist" philosophy of correspondence with reality. The Peano model is based on the assumption that 1+1=2, and while it is not
  • #1
lewis198
96
0
Can 1+1 be proven? If so, then is mathematics a science?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #2
No, 1+ 1 is not an observation. It is not even a statement! Did you mean "1+ 1= 2"? If so then it can be proven from the "axioms" and definitions of, say, the Peano model for the natural numbers. You asked two things: "Is 1+ 1 an observation?" and "can 1+ 1 be proven?". I don't know which of those the "if so" refers to. No, 1+ 1 (= 2) is not an observation, yes, it can be proven. Therefore, mathematics is not a science, at least not in the strict sense of being based on the "Scientific Method". The scientific method is itself based on observation and experimentation.

More fundamentally, all science is necessarily based on a "Realist" philosophy in that the "truth" of a theory depends on correspondence with reality (it matches experimental results) while mathematics is based on an "Idealist" philosophy in that the "truth" of a theory depends on consistency.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #3
Is the Peano model based on the assumption that 1+1=2?
 
  • #4
I'd like to add something to Halls' post:

Tnere is nothing intrinsically wrong when defining a number system to define what your symbols are meant to mean.
Thus, the symbol "2" can be connected axiomatically as a true statement in the symbol expression 2=1+1, which might be regarded as the DEFINITION of 2.

But, what "is" our number system, really?
In particular, can we show that all those axioms we define a number system with can also define a model that we can use for something?

Can we CONSTRUCT from something more basic than number system something that PROVABLY behaves as our abstract "mumbers"?

Indeed we can, regarding "sets" as the most basic concept to develop maths from.

But, the axioms in SET theory doesn't specify "1" "+" "2" and so on in an entirely trivial way. Therefore, if we are to formulate something solely by aid/constraint of the axioms in set theory that will mimick our "numbers", then we must PROVE statements like 1+1=2, with suitable set definitions of 1,+,2 and =.
 
  • #5
lewis198 said:
Is the Peano model based on the assumption that 1+1=2?
In the usual formulation of Peano arithmetic, that is the definition of the number represented by '2'.

Peano arithmetic is a theory, not a model. Peano arithmetic is merely a formal language together with a list of axioms. Any mathematical structure that happens to satisfy those axioms is a model of peano arithmetic, and we often call such a thing a "set of natural numbers".
 
Last edited:
  • #6
When the OP posted his question, I was thinking along the lines of Russell&Whitehead, that you know a lot more about than me, Hurkyl.

Hope my nonsense fraction was acceptably small..
 
  • #7
lewis198 said:
Is the Peano model based on the assumption that 1+1=2?
No, it is not. That is a theorem (although a very easy one).

The "Peano Axioms" essentially say there exist a set of objects, N, called "numbers", together with a function, s, from N to itself such that:
1. There exist a unique member of N, called "1", such that s is a one-to-one function from N onto N-{1}.
(That essentially says that for y any member of N except 1, there exist a member of N, x, such that s(x)= y. There is NO x in N such that s(x)= 1. s is often called the "successor function". Every number has a successor and every number except 1 is the successor of some number.)

2. If a subset, X, of N as the properties that:
a) 1 is in X
b) whenever x is in X, s(x) is also in X
then X= N.
(This is the "principle of induction".)

We then define addition, +, by
For any a in N, a+ 1= s(a). If b is also in N, b not equal to 1, then, (by (1) above) there exist c such that b= s(c) and a+ b= s(a+ c).

One needs to show that this is "well defined"- that is given any a and b, this defines a member of N- that's not too difficult but tedious.

Finally, we define 2 to be s(1). Now it is easy to prove that 1+1= 2. From (1) above, and the the first part of the definition of addition, 1+ 1= s(1)= 2. We have proved, from the axioms and the definitions of "addition" and 2, that 1+ 1= 2. (Notice that 1 is not "defined"- it is "given" in the first axiom.)

A little more complicated is the proof that 2+ 2= 4. We have already defined 2 as s(1). Now we define 3 to be s(2) and 4 to be s(3).

Then, by the second part of the definition of addition, 2+ 2= s(2+1). By the first part of the definition of addition, 2+ 1= s(2)= 3 so 2+ 2= s(3)= 4.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #8
arildno said:
When the OP posted his question, I was thinking along the lines of Russell&Whitehead, that you know a lot more about than me, Hurkyl.

Hope my nonsense fraction was acceptably small..
I know of Principia Mathematica, but I've not actually studied it. But judging from how I hear it described, I'm quite content to stick with modern styles. :smile:
 
  • #9
Basically any mathematical field is started by axioms, or things that you hold to be true that don't need to be proven. Everything else is build up from the axioms in a particular field. Or at least that's how I came to understand it...
 
  • #10
HallsofIvy said:
)while mathematics is based on an "Idealist" philosophy in that the "truth" of a theory depends on consistency.

Yay, Kant!
 
  • #11
1+1=2 might be argued by many to be a report of an observation, but a statement like 123456789012345678+1=123456789012345679 could not be an observation made by a human (perhaps a counting machine?)
 
  • #12
Argued, yes, but incorrectly. "1 apple + 1 apple= 2 apples" is an observation. "1 rock+ 1 rock= 2 rocks" is an observation. "1+ 1= 2" is not. You can "observe" 1 apple or 1 rock. You can not "observe" 1!
 
  • #13
Though when thinking about it, it seems impossible, at least to me, to define addition by other ways than mapping the natural numbers to objects, either of our thought or physical experience.

Edit: Perhaps defining addition in these terms would work: we define 0 + 0 = 0, 0 + 1 = 1 and 1 + 1 = 2. We can then refer to the binary addition algorithm for all other additions. Whenever using the addition algorithm in another number system, we'd need a higher number of defined additions, but we can define these by converting to binary, using the addition algorithm, and converting back.
 
Last edited:

1. What is an observation?

An observation is the act of gathering information or data through one or more of the five senses (sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell).

2. Is 1+1 an observation?

No, 1+1 is not an observation. It is a mathematical equation that represents the addition of two numbers.

3. Why is 1+1 not considered an observation?

1+1 is not considered an observation because it does not involve any sensory input or data collection. It is a concept that can be understood through reasoning and math.

4. Can an observation be expressed as a mathematical equation?

Yes, observations can be expressed as mathematical equations if they involve measurable quantities or variables. However, not all mathematical equations represent observations.

5. Does an observation always lead to a conclusion?

No, not all observations lead to a conclusion. Observations are used to gather data and information, which can then be analyzed and interpreted to draw conclusions. However, sometimes observations may not provide enough information to come to a conclusion.

Similar threads

  • General Math
Replies
2
Views
762
Replies
72
Views
4K
  • General Math
Replies
3
Views
759
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • General Math
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • General Math
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • General Math
2
Replies
45
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • General Math
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • General Math
Replies
1
Views
1K
Back
Top