Fundamental mathematic proofs

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the existence of proofs for fundamental mathematical operations such as addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. Participants explore the nature of these operations, their axiomatic foundations, and the possibility of proving basic mathematical principles.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant inquires about the availability of proofs for basic mathematical operations, suggesting that these principles are often overlooked.
  • Another participant argues that such operations are axioms and cannot be proven since they form the foundational rules of mathematics.
  • A later reply identifies Gödel as the mathematician who established that axioms cannot prove themselves and that some truths remain unprovable depending on the axioms chosen.
  • It is mentioned that rather than proving operations like addition, they are typically defined within mathematics.
  • One participant suggests that while basic operations may not have proofs, specific procedures, such as converting fractions to decimal representations, can be proven, referencing Euclid's algorithm.
  • Another participant recalls a complex proof that demonstrates 1+1=2, noting it is found in Russell and Whitehead's "Principia Mathematica" and is lengthy due to its derivation from set theory axioms.
  • It is also noted that in modern contexts, 2 is often defined as 1+1, simplifying the proof.
  • Additionally, some participants mention various mathematical "tricks" that can aid in mental calculations, such as using formulas to derive squares of numbers.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether fundamental operations can be proven, with some asserting they are axiomatic and others suggesting that specific mathematical procedures can be proven. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the existence of proofs for basic operations.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on definitions of mathematical operations and the unresolved nature of whether proofs exist for fundamental principles.

Cheman
Messages
235
Reaction score
1
Fundamental mathematic proofs...

I know this may seem a slightly odd question, but are there any website or pdf files, etc, floating around of proofs of the basic pricipals and "tricks" of maths? eg - adding, subtraction, multiplication, division, fractional sums and products, percentages, etc? I ask because I feel that these basic bits of maths are often over looked as we are simply told "this is how you do this" - are there any algebraic proofs for these?

Thanks. :wink:
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
I highly doubt there are proofs of these operations. This is because they are the axioms upon which the modern mathematical structure was built upon. Somebody proved (I wish I could remember his name!) using logic that axioms cannot be proved using themselves, and that given any set of axioms there will be some problems that are true but cannot be proven...by changing the axioms you change which problems can/cannot be proven.
In short, they cannot be proven because they are the basic rules used to prove things. Don't worry-they aren't wrong. They are just the necessary assumptions we have made for centuries.
 
His name was Godel.
 
We don't generally prove things like additon, we define them.
 
It depends, however, on what you are actually asking about:

If you are asking:
How can I prove the correctness of the procedure by which we convert a fraction of two naturals into the equivalent decimal representation of that fraction; then this is the same as asking for a proof of Euclid's algorithm which surely exist somewhere.

It is also common in school to call this procedure "division".
 
If I recall correctly there is a proof that 1+1=2. I remember seeing it, it was long and complex. I forget the exact name though, sorry.
 
The proof is in Russell and Whitehead's Principia Mathematica and it is about 168 pages long. It derives 1+1=2 from the axioms of set theory.
 
These days, 2 is usually defined to be 1+1, so that proof is fairly short. :smile:
 
It depends upon what you are asking. They are writers who will tell you about mental math, for example in the formula (X+1)^2 = X^2 +2X +1, this means that if you know 15^2, you can use the formula to find 16^2. Many such "tricks" exist.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
558
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 94 ·
4
Replies
94
Views
7K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
10K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
5K
  • Sticky
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K