Proof of 1+1=2: Maths Explanation & Examples

  • Thread starter Thread starter nebbione
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the proof of the arithmetic statement 1+1=2, referencing the extensive treatment found in "Principia Mathematica." It highlights that while formal proofs exist, they rely on foundational axioms that are accepted without proof, such as the properties of addition and multiplication. Participants note that defining basic operations like addition is essential before proving statements like 1+1=2. The conversation also touches on the philosophical implications of mathematical definitions and axioms. Ultimately, understanding these concepts requires a foundational knowledge of mathematics and logic.
nebbione
Messages
131
Reaction score
0
Proof of 1+1=2 ?

Hi everyone! Which is the proof of the rightness of arithmetical operations ?
For example which is the proof that 1+1=2 ??
Can you link me the proof or explain how it is done or where i have to start ?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org


Ahhh ok ok ! But there isn't a simpler proof ? and who can proof that 1*1 = 1 ?? why it is like that ? which is the proof ?
 


There aren't any proofs if you keep on asking "why?", at some point or another you're going to have to accept things as true, without proof: these are axioms. Some common axioms for arithmetic are:

1) a + (b + c) = (a + b) + c
2) a + b = b + a
3) a + 0 = a
4) a + (-a) = 0
5) a*b = b*a
6) a*(b*c) = (a*b)*c
7) 1*a = a
8) a*(1/a) = 1
9) a*(b+c) = a*b + a*c

There are more formal definitions using set theory. Anyway, the idea is to make the axioms as simple as self-evidently true as possible, and then derive everything else from them.

Also, have you heard of the parallel postulate and non-Euclidean geometry? That's quite interesting.

EDIT: Although, re-reading your post, you may have meant something different with your first question. You could think of 2 as being defined as the answer to 1 + 1.
 


As the previous poster said, at some point, there are no proofs. Before we can prove 1+1=2, we have to define what addition of two real numbers. And we define that ... how? We just take it as something that "is." Real numbers prove difficult to define, but it turns out that once we have sets defined (sets may be what we have to take for granted,) it's possible to define real numbers. This is part of why some people think we invented mathematics, but that's a thread in the Philosophy forum.
 


OK nice argument! I understand now! Doing some study in linear algebra i remember about neutral element in multiplication (that is 1) and neutral element in addition (that is 0)
so i can proof that 1*1 is equal to 1 by this axioms right ?
Now it's clear
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...

Similar threads

Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
66
Views
6K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
3
Replies
105
Views
6K
Back
Top