Proving 2+2=4 Using Field Axioms

  • Thread starter Thread starter rafasaur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Axioms Field
AI Thread Summary
Proving that 2+2=4 requires a clear definition of the numbers involved and the operation of addition. The discussion highlights that using field axioms, one can define numbers recursively, starting from the empty set. For example, 2 is defined as the set containing 0 and 1, while 4 is defined as the set containing 0, 1, 2, and 3. The proof shows that through recursive addition, 2+2 can be expressed as (1+1)+(1+1), ultimately demonstrating that it equals 4. The conversation emphasizes the importance of precise definitions in mathematical proofs.
rafasaur
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
I've looked around but haven't found anyway to prove 2+2=4. I'm pretty sure you need to use field axioms, but I just haven't found it yet. Is there a way to do it? Like showing a+a=2a? Or a+b=c? Like 1+1=2. Something like that.

Thanks!
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Directly.

What is the definition of 2? Of 4?
 
rafasaur said:
I've looked around but haven't found anyway to prove 2+2=4.

See Foundations of Analysis by Landau.
 
You just need a definition of 2, of 4 and of +.
Defn: 0 = empty set. 1 = {0}. 2 = {0,1} = {0,{0}}, 3 = {0,1,2} = {0,{0},{0,{0}}},
4 = {0,1,2,3} = {0,{0},{0,{0}}, {0,{0},{0,{0}}}}.
Addition is defined recursively. I.e. first adding one is defined. n + 1 = n union {n}.

i.e. 1+ 1 = {0} union {{0}} = {0,{0}} = 2.
2+1 = 2 union {2} = {0,1} union {2} = {0,1,2} = 3.
3+1 = {0,1,2}+1 = {0,1,2} union {3} = {0,1,2,3} = 4.
Assuming we have defined n+m then n + (m+1) = (n+m)+1.

now you have enough to do it. or keep reading.
So 2 + 2 = (2+1)+1 = 3+1 = 4.

Tata!

Aren’t you glad you asked? Basically it seems 4 = ((1+1)+1)+1. and 2 = (1+1).
so 2+2 = (1+1)+(1+1), so it boils down to associativity of +.
 
(1+1+1+1)=1+1+1+1
(1+1)+(1+1)=4(1)
2+2=4

Does that work? Sorry I'm a beginner when it comes to proofs.
 
You haven't said why "1+ 1+ 1+ 1" would be equal to "4(1)" or why 4(1) would be equal to 4. That was Mathwonk's point- this whole thing depends upon exactly how you define "+", "1", "2", and "4". You have just assumed basic arithmetic without giving any definitions. That is no different from just assuming that 2+ 2= 4.
 
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...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
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...

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
16
Views
3K
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
59
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
4K
Replies
17
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top