Really basic stuff that was never proven in class
Moderators: gmalivuk, Moderators General, Prelates
 mmmcannibalism
 Posts: 2150
 Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:16 am UTC
Really basic stuff that was never proven in class
Just a thread to discuss basic proofs for things that are often taught at some level in school without a proper proof. For instance, foil multiplication of polynomials is taught in algebra 1, but at least in my school it was never properly explained why(beyond you multiply each term in the first by each term of the last).
Izawwlgood wrote:I for one would happily live on an island as a fuzzy sealhuman.
Oregonaut wrote:Damn fetuses and their terroist plots.
Re: Really basic stuff that was never proven
Oh, that's awesome If only I taught the younger kids so that I could use it with them!
Re: Really basic stuff that was never proven
Our teacher just showed us it as a basic result of the distributive property:
rearrange if you feel the need. I think the picture your provide gives a good geometric interpretation of why it holds though.
Code: Select all
(a+b)*(c+d)  (a+b) is just a number so we can distribute
(a+b)*c + (a+b)*d  Now we can use the basic distributive property
a*c+b*c + a*d+b*d
rearrange if you feel the need. I think the picture your provide gives a good geometric interpretation of why it holds though.
double epsilon = .0000001;
Re: Really basic stuff that was never proven
Dason wrote:Our teacher just showed us it as a basic result of the distributive property:Code: Select all
(a+b)*(c+d)  (a+b) is just a number so we can distribute
(a+b)*c + (a+b)*d  Now we can use the basic distributive property
a*c+b*c + a*d+b*d
rearrange if you feel the need. I think the picture your provide gives a good geometric interpretation of why it holds though.
Yes, but why does the distributive property hold? (Same picture, just with only one row)
addams wrote:This forum has some very well educated people typing away in loops with Sourmilk. He is a lucky Sourmilk.
Re: Really basic stuff that was never proven
In order to answer that you have to define multiplication.
And the whole "repeated addition" thing isn't going to cut it. What about fractions? What are we doing when we multiply fractions?
And the whole "repeated addition" thing isn't going to cut it. What about fractions? What are we doing when we multiply fractions?
Re: Really basic stuff that was never proven
Kurushimi wrote:In order to answer that you have to define multiplication.
And the whole "repeated addition" thing isn't going to cut it. What about fractions? What are we doing when we multiply fractions?
How do you define fractions without multiplication? You generally start with natural numbers, define multiplication as repeated addition, then define negatives and fractions as pairs with equivalence relations.
addams wrote:This forum has some very well educated people typing away in loops with Sourmilk. He is a lucky Sourmilk.
 jestingrabbit
 Factoids are just Datas that haven't grown up yet
 Posts: 5967
 Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:50 pm UTC
 Location: Sydney
Re: Really basic stuff that was never proven
mikel wrote:Yes, but why does the distributive property hold? (Same picture, just with only one row)
I think we proved the rationals were a field at some point, but I don't think we ever made the final step to the reals (that step being "arithmetic operations are continuous"). Not teaching field axioms (and matrix arithmetic) is a real deficit of most advanced high school maths educations. You can also use them to prove that (a)*(b) = a*b for instance.
There's also a bit of a problem with the diagram if one of A and B is negative, but not the other, though you could rectify it with a case bash.
Probably most people see a proof of pythagoras and a proof of the volume formula for a sphere just not the best proofs of them.
ameretrifle wrote:Magic space feudalism is therefore a viable idea.
 Cleverbeans
 Posts: 1378
 Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 1:16 pm UTC
Re: Really basic stuff that was never proven
Pretty sure this is covered in Book I of Euclid's elements.
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."  Abraham Lincoln

 Posts: 133
 Joined: Mon May 17, 2010 8:52 pm UTC
Re: Really basic stuff that was never proven
Pretty sure this is covered in Book I of Euclid's elements.
You've misunderstood the purpose of this thread. It's for basic things that posters were taught, but not given proofs for  not for basic things that have never been proven at all.
 mmmcannibalism
 Posts: 2150
 Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:16 am UTC
Re: Really basic stuff that was never proven
There's also a bit of a problem with the diagram if one of A and B is negative, but not the other, though you could rectify it with a case bash.
It's still easy to demonstrate with geometry
edityeah I messed up that picture when I thought about it, the top part is (ba)(c+d)
Last edited by mmmcannibalism on Fri Aug 20, 2010 11:50 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Izawwlgood wrote:I for one would happily live on an island as a fuzzy sealhuman.
Oregonaut wrote:Damn fetuses and their terroist plots.

 Posts: 548
 Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:04 am UTC
 Contact:
Re: Really basic stuff that was never proven
Fundamental theorem of arithmetic. I'd asked why it was true when I was six, I never got a satisfactory response. I got things like "Well, can you think of any examples?" and crap I like that. I had to wait until I got a book of number theory before I actually saw a proof.
<signature content="" style="tag:html;" overused meta />
Good fucking job Will Yu, you found me  __ 
Good fucking job Will Yu, you found me  __ 
Re: Really basic stuff that was never proven
mmmcannibalism wrote:There's also a bit of a problem with the diagram if one of A and B is negative, but not the other, though you could rectify it with a case bash.
It's still easy to demonstrate with geometry
If it's easy then why did you screw it up?
Let B = 2, C = 3, D = 4, A = 1.
(A + B)*(C + D) = 1 * 7 = 7
Your claim:
(A + B)*(C + D) = BC + BD = 2*3 + 2*4 = 6 + 8 = 14
14 != 7
Re: Really basic stuff that was never proven
Seraph wrote:mmmcannibalism wrote:There's also a bit of a problem with the diagram if one of A and B is negative, but not the other, though you could rectify it with a case bash.
It's still easy to demonstrate with geometry
If it's easy then why did you screw it up?
Let B = 2, C = 3, D = 4, A = 1.
(A + B)*(C + D) = 1 * 7 = 7
Your claim:
(A + B)*(C + D) = BC + BD = 2*3 + 2*4 = 6 + 8 = 14
14 != 7
To be fair the formula he has at the bottom just says area. The area of the whole thing would be ((ba)+a)*(c+d) which does equal bc+bd. If you want to do (ba)*(c+d) then you just sum the top two squares to get the desired result.
double epsilon = .0000001;
Re: Really basic stuff that was never proven
To be really pedantic, no one ever proved to me that the total area of a shape is equal to the sum of the areas of the partition. This is a nontrivial result.

 Posts: 135
 Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 3:47 am UTC
Re: Really basic stuff that was never proven
squareroot wrote:Fundamental theorem of arithmetic. I'd asked why it was true when I was six, I never got a satisfactory response. I got things like "Well, can you think of any examples?" and crap I like that. I had to wait until I got a book of number theory before I actually saw a proof.
They were probably trying to get you to learn something.That theorem is absolutely trivial.
 Attachments

 foo1.png (8.96 KiB) Viewed 6652 times

 Posts: 11
 Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 3:18 pm UTC
Re: Really basic stuff that was never proven
Whenever people define pi to me they say it is "the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter." I always thought that it wasn't intuitively obvious that this is a constant.

 Posts: 135
 Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 3:47 am UTC
Re: Really basic stuff that was never proven
Divide the circle into [imath]n[/imath] sectors and make them into triangles. Then take the limit as the number of triangles approaches infinity.
 Attachments

 lol.GIF (3.83 KiB) Viewed 6632 times
Re: Really basic stuff that was never proven
TiglathPileser3 wrote:Whenever people define pi to me they say it is "the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter." I always thought that it wasn't intuitively obvious that this is a constant.
It's not. In particular, there is no such thing as 'pi' in noneuclidean geometries. The ratio of the circumference to the diameter will depend on how big your 'circle' is.
Re: Really basic stuff that was never proven
TiglathPileser3 wrote:Whenever people define pi to me they say it is "the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter." I always thought that it wasn't intuitively obvious that this is a constant.
Well, it's intuitive if you remember that all circles are similar to each other and all parts of a similar shape are grown/shrank in the same proportion.

 Posts: 548
 Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:04 am UTC
 Contact:
Re: Really basic stuff that was never proven
They were probably trying to get you to learn something.That theorem is absolutely trivial.
Yeah, you go over to your nearest elementary school and try to prove that to them. And I think the fact that gcd(n,m)=1 > (there exists r and s such that rn+sm=1) is much less elegant to show  if you can call the proof you gave elegant. Of course it seems trivial now, I just had trouble with the fact that (p does not divide n) && (p divides nm) > (p divides m). It sound so simple it's silly, but that's just because we naturally think of integers' unique factorization. I actually got a bit of relief when I learned that unique factorization fails on some fields, and that I wasn't just being paranoid/stupid for those seven years of my life.
<signature content="" style="tag:html;" overused meta />
Good fucking job Will Yu, you found me  __ 
Good fucking job Will Yu, you found me  __ 

 Posts: 135
 Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 3:47 am UTC
Re: Really basic stuff that was never proven
squareroot wrote:Yeah, you go over to your nearest elementary school and try to prove that to them. And I think the fact that gcd(n,m)=1 > (there exists r and s such that rn+sm=1) is much less elegant to show  if you can call the proof you gave elegant. Of course it seems trivial now, I just had trouble with the fact that (p does not divide n) && (p divides nm) > (p divides m).
That was mostly a parody of how mathematicians call proven theorems no matter how difficult it was to prove it in the first place, which is why I put the smiley.
Re: Really basic stuff that was never proven
About a year ago, for lulz I undertook proving that multiplication of the natural numbers is commutative. Holy cow. That was a halfpage of dense symbolic manipulation even with the assumption that multiplication is associative and addition is associative and commutative. I can appreciate why people take it for granted.
Re: Really basic stuff that was never proven
Very rarely (I would venture perhaps even never) has the proof been given that 1+1 does in fact equal 2 before more advanced topics are covered.
All Shadow priest spells that deal Fire damage now appear green.
Big freaky cereal boxes of death.

 Posts: 548
 Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:04 am UTC
 Contact:
Re: Really basic stuff that was never proven
dean.menezes wrote:squareroot wrote:Yeah, you go over to your nearest elementary school and try to prove that to them. And I think the fact that gcd(n,m)=1 > (there exists r and s such that rn+sm=1) is much less elegant to show  if you can call the proof you gave elegant. Of course it seems trivial now, I just had trouble with the fact that (p does not divide n) && (p divides nm) > (p divides m).
That was mostly a parody of how mathematicians call proven theorems no matter how difficult it was to prove it in the first place, which is why I put the smiley.
Oh, I'm sorry. I was just feeling some old steam toward the people who never actually explained it to me. I didn't catch your humor.
For the record, addition's associativity and commutativity are trivial  inductive reasoning gives commutativity away almost for free, and associativity is also pretty simple.
To prove commutativity... Well, I think I would prove distributive property first.
a*(b+c) = (a1)*(b+c) + b + c = (a2)*(b+c) + b + c + b +c = (a2)*(b+c) + 2*b + 2*c.... then use inductive reasoning and collect terms of b and c, with base cases (0)*(b+c) + a*b + a*c = a*b + a*c and (1)*(b+c) + (a1)*b + (a1)*c = a*b + a*c. Once you have that, proving commutativity is a lot easier.
<signature content="" style="tag:html;" overused meta />
Good fucking job Will Yu, you found me  __ 
Good fucking job Will Yu, you found me  __ 
 silverhammermba
 Posts: 178
 Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 1:16 am UTC
Re: Really basic stuff that was never proven
dean.menezes wrote:squareroot wrote:Fundamental theorem of arithmetic. I'd asked why it was true when I was six, I never got a satisfactory response. I got things like "Well, can you think of any examples?" and crap I like that. I had to wait until I got a book of number theory before I actually saw a proof.
They were probably trying to get you to learn something.That theorem is absolutely trivial.
Please tell me that the proof you posted is intentionally obfuscated. There are truly trivial proofs of the fundamental theorem of arithmetic that don't require all of that complexity.
Re: Really basic stuff that was never proven
Give one.
Jerry Bona wrote:The Axiom of Choice is obviously true; the Well Ordering Principle is obviously false; and who can tell about Zorn's Lemma?

 Posts: 135
 Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 3:47 am UTC
Re: Really basic stuff that was never proven
Lemma 1
Let [imath]p[/imath] be prime and a positive [imath]<p[/imath]. Then no positive number [imath]b[/imath] can be found less than [imath]p[/imath] such that [imath]ab \equiv 0 \pmod{p}[/imath].
Proof
If the theorem is false, then we have numbers [imath]b, c, d, \ldots[/imath] all [imath]<p[/imath] such that [imath]ab \equiv 0[/imath], [imath]ac \equiv 0[/imath],
[imath]ad \equiv 0, \ldots[/imath].
Let [imath]b[/imath] be the smallest of all of these so that no number less than [imath]b[/imath] has this property. Clearly [imath]b>1[/imath], since otherwise [imath]ab = a < p[/imath]. Since [imath]p[/imath] is prime, it cannot be divided by b, but lies between two successive multiples of [imath]b[/imath]: [imath]mb[/imath] and [imath](m+1)b[/imath]. Let [imath]p  mb = b'[/imath] so that [imath]b'[/imath] is a positive number [imath]<b[/imath]. Since [imath]ab \equiv 0[/imath], [imath]mab \equiv 0[/imath] and so [imath]a(p  mb) = ab' \equiv 0[/imath]. This implies that [imath]b'[/imath] is one of the numbers [imath]b, c, d, \ldots[/imath] and it is smaller than the smallest of them QEA.
Theorem
If neither [imath]a[/imath] nor [imath]b[/imath] is divisible by [imath]p[/imath], then [imath]ab[/imath] is not divisible by p.
Proof
Let [imath]\alpha, \beta[/imath] be the least positive residues of [imath]a[/imath] and [imath]b[/imath]. By hypothesis, neither of them will be zero. Now if [imath]ab \equiv 0 \pmod{p}[/imath] then [imath]\alpha \beta \equiv 0[/imath] which contradicts the previous theorem.
The fundamental theorem of arithmetic follows by induction.
Let [imath]p[/imath] be prime and a positive [imath]<p[/imath]. Then no positive number [imath]b[/imath] can be found less than [imath]p[/imath] such that [imath]ab \equiv 0 \pmod{p}[/imath].
Proof
If the theorem is false, then we have numbers [imath]b, c, d, \ldots[/imath] all [imath]<p[/imath] such that [imath]ab \equiv 0[/imath], [imath]ac \equiv 0[/imath],
[imath]ad \equiv 0, \ldots[/imath].
Let [imath]b[/imath] be the smallest of all of these so that no number less than [imath]b[/imath] has this property. Clearly [imath]b>1[/imath], since otherwise [imath]ab = a < p[/imath]. Since [imath]p[/imath] is prime, it cannot be divided by b, but lies between two successive multiples of [imath]b[/imath]: [imath]mb[/imath] and [imath](m+1)b[/imath]. Let [imath]p  mb = b'[/imath] so that [imath]b'[/imath] is a positive number [imath]<b[/imath]. Since [imath]ab \equiv 0[/imath], [imath]mab \equiv 0[/imath] and so [imath]a(p  mb) = ab' \equiv 0[/imath]. This implies that [imath]b'[/imath] is one of the numbers [imath]b, c, d, \ldots[/imath] and it is smaller than the smallest of them QEA.
Theorem
If neither [imath]a[/imath] nor [imath]b[/imath] is divisible by [imath]p[/imath], then [imath]ab[/imath] is not divisible by p.
Proof
Let [imath]\alpha, \beta[/imath] be the least positive residues of [imath]a[/imath] and [imath]b[/imath]. By hypothesis, neither of them will be zero. Now if [imath]ab \equiv 0 \pmod{p}[/imath] then [imath]\alpha \beta \equiv 0[/imath] which contradicts the previous theorem.
The fundamental theorem of arithmetic follows by induction.
Re: Really basic stuff that was never proven
That's just a (not terribly nice) way to redo two sentences in the original proof.
Yes, it's "the important" lemma.
Yes, all the nasty shit in the original proof is mostly to formalize just what "unique prime factorization" even means (something you didn't bother doing at all).
No, what you wrote is certainly not "truly trivial". It is, I would say, slightly more complex than the proof sketched out originally. It just brushes the boring details under the carpet.
Yes, it's "the important" lemma.
Yes, all the nasty shit in the original proof is mostly to formalize just what "unique prime factorization" even means (something you didn't bother doing at all).
No, what you wrote is certainly not "truly trivial". It is, I would say, slightly more complex than the proof sketched out originally. It just brushes the boring details under the carpet.
Jerry Bona wrote:The Axiom of Choice is obviously true; the Well Ordering Principle is obviously false; and who can tell about Zorn's Lemma?

 Posts: 1466
 Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 7:34 pm UTC
Re: Really basic stuff that was never proven
So i've been dicking around with some math stuff and i was looking at just why a negative * negative = positive, and negative * positive = negative.
I know that they do, and can prove it algebraically, but not when looking at the actual numbers.
Spoiler of algebraic proof
But multiplication is really repetitive addition. a * b is a added to itself b times.
a + a +a...
a*b is a added to itself b times.
(a) + (a) + (a)...
a * b is a subtracted from itself b times
a  a  a...
and a * b is a subtracted from itself b times
(a)(a)(a)...
But those last two are wrong. They should be
a  a  a... and (a)(a)(a)... respectively.
But i can't find any reason to justify why (besides, i guess, the fact that that matches the algebraic proof). If a * b is a subtracted from itself b times then why must i start with a? It doesn't seem to make sense. :/
I know that they do, and can prove it algebraically, but not when looking at the actual numbers.
Spoiler of algebraic proof
Spoiler:
But multiplication is really repetitive addition. a * b is a added to itself b times.
a + a +a...
a*b is a added to itself b times.
(a) + (a) + (a)...
a * b is a subtracted from itself b times
a  a  a...
and a * b is a subtracted from itself b times
(a)(a)(a)...
But those last two are wrong. They should be
a  a  a... and (a)(a)(a)... respectively.
But i can't find any reason to justify why (besides, i guess, the fact that that matches the algebraic proof). If a * b is a subtracted from itself b times then why must i start with a? It doesn't seem to make sense. :/
"It is bitter – bitter", he answered,
"But I like it
Because it is bitter,
And because it is my heart."
"But I like it
Because it is bitter,
And because it is my heart."
Re: Really basic stuff that was never proven
Spambot5546 wrote:But multiplication is really repetitive addition. a * b is a added to itself b times.
a + a +a...
a*b is a added to itself b times.
(a) + (a) + (a)...
ok
a * b is a subtracted from itself b times
a  a  a...
Clearly this is wrong. Take a *(1)
which in your way of going about it is
a  a = 0.
So we already knew this was wrong. But this just proves the point anymore. Your intuition is failing you here. What if we redefine your way of doing things as:
a*b is 'a' added to 0 'b' times. Notice that the a*b as "a added to itself b times" isn't really right because then 2*3 should be 2+(2+2+2).
Using the new method then we can consider a*(b) to be 'a' subtracted from 0 'b' times. Then we also get (a)*(b) is (a) subtracted from 0 b times. Play around with it.
double epsilon = .0000001;

 Posts: 1466
 Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 7:34 pm UTC
Re: Really basic stuff that was never proven
Dason wrote:What if we redefine your way of doing things as:
a*b is 'a' added to 0 'b' times.
That right there is exactly the kind of redefinition i was looking for.
With that a * b would be 0 minus a series of "a"s and the whole thing works out.
"It is bitter – bitter", he answered,
"But I like it
Because it is bitter,
And because it is my heart."
"But I like it
Because it is bitter,
And because it is my heart."
Re: Really basic stuff that was never proven
Let a,b be be elements of a ring R. Let "" denote additive inverse  that is, a is the additive inverse of a, so a + a = 0, where 0 is the additive identity of R. Then, (a)*b = (a*b), that is, a*b + (a)*b = 0. This is a rather trivial consequence of the distributive property (and also that 0*x = 0 for all x, which is perhaps not immediately obvious), and so holds for any ring. It just remains to be seen what "negative" might actually mean in some cases.
Note: the person who made the proof is not the person who said that there was a trivial proof. In case you maybe wanted to bottle up your vitriol for another time.
antonfire wrote:That's just a (not terribly nice) way to redo two sentences in the original proof.
Yes, it's "the important" lemma.
Yes, all the nasty shit in the original proof is mostly to formalize just what "unique prime factorization" even means (something you didn't bother doing at all).
No, what you wrote is certainly not "truly trivial". It is, I would say, slightly more complex than the proof sketched out originally. It just brushes the boring details under the carpet.
Note: the person who made the proof is not the person who said that there was a trivial proof. In case you maybe wanted to bottle up your vitriol for another time.
Re: Really basic stuff that was never proven
antonfire wrote:Give one.
Just thought I'd add this.
It's far from a trivial proof, but there is an elementary proof that shows that the sequence P consisting of unity and all the prime numbers is a basis of the sequence of natural numbers. "Three Pearls of Number Theory" by A. Y. Khinchin talks about it. The proof is by L. G. Schnirelmann.
(the fact this was always assumed in high school and first year university also hurt my heart, but I guessed it was just too hard to be covered).
Yakk wrote:hey look, the algorithm is a FSM. Thus, by his noodly appendage, QED
Re: Really basic stuff that was never proven
I've been trying to prove that that for an ellipse with a semimajor axis of a and eccentricity of e the distance between the center and the focus is ea and the distance between the directrix and center is a/e but I'm kinda having trouble. Any hints on what path I should take?
Re: Really basic stuff that was never proven
WarDaft wrote:Very rarely (I would venture perhaps even never) has the proof been given that 1+1 does in fact equal 2 before more advanced topics are covered.
Refer you to Bertrand Russell's Principia Mathematica, volume II, page 87. I haven't read the proof, but suffice to say that by the time it is done you're at page 200 and something. Also note that many other laws are discussed previously (in Volume I)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f5/Principia_Mathematica_theorem_5443.png
 Eebster the Great
 Posts: 3484
 Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC
 Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Re: Really basic stuff that was never proven
WarDaft wrote:Very rarely (I would venture perhaps even never) has the proof been given that 1+1 does in fact equal 2 before more advanced topics are covered.
Isn't that essentially the definition of 2, though? I mean 2 is usually defined as something like the successor of one (let's write it S(1)) or as {0,1} = {{},{{}}}, which are essentially equivalent. Given 2 = S(1) and 1 = S(0) and a + S(b) = S(a + b) and a + 0 = a, we know 1 + 1 = 1 + S(0) (by definition of 1) = S(1 + 0) (by definition of addition) = S(1) (by definition of addition) = 2 (by definition of 2).
So that one truly is a trivial proof.

 Posts: 1466
 Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 7:34 pm UTC
Re: Really basic stuff that was never proven
Yeah, at that point you might as well ask for a proof that 1 = 1. That addition functions the way it does on our fingers, and things like the properties of equality, have to be accepted a priori because there's really no way to prove them and nothing in math works without them.
To put it another way, hold up one (1) finger. Now hold up one (1) other finger. Note that you have held up two sets of one (1) finger. Careful observation and measurement will demonstrate that you are now holding up two (2) fingers. Ergo 1 + 1 = 2. QED.
To put it another way, hold up one (1) finger. Now hold up one (1) other finger. Note that you have held up two sets of one (1) finger. Careful observation and measurement will demonstrate that you are now holding up two (2) fingers. Ergo 1 + 1 = 2. QED.
"It is bitter – bitter", he answered,
"But I like it
Because it is bitter,
And because it is my heart."
"But I like it
Because it is bitter,
And because it is my heart."
 Eebster the Great
 Posts: 3484
 Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC
 Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Re: Really basic stuff that was never proven
Spambot5546 wrote:Yeah, at that point you might as well ask for a proof that 1 = 1. That addition functions the way it does on our fingers, and things like the properties of equality, have to be accepted a priori because there's really no way to prove them and nothing in math works without them.
To put it another way, hold up one (1) finger. Now hold up one (1) other finger. Note that you have held up two sets of one (1) finger. Careful observation and measurement will demonstrate that you are now holding up two (2) fingers. Ergo 1 + 1 = 2. QED.
Technically once you bring fingers into the picture, you are talking about physics, not pure math. However, if we assume that we can model your process of fingeraddition or whatever as an operation, we could easily prove that there is an isomorphism between the group of natural numbers with addition and the group of fingers with fingeraddition.
 gmalivuk
 GNU Terry Pratchett
 Posts: 26822
 Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
 Location: Here and There
 Contact:
Re: Really basic stuff that was never proven
Any "proof" that 1+1=2 isn't done because we have any doubt that 1+1=2, but rather because we need to make sure that the system we're building implies the mathematical results we expect. If Russell's proof ended up showing 1+1=3, of course it wouldn't mean that we'd been wrong all these years. It would just mean that whatever Russell started with turned out not to be the correct way to build math on solid logical foundations.
Re: Really basic stuff that was never proven
One thng I don't ever remember being proved in gradeschool maths is that the angles in every triangle add up to 180 degrees.
Actually, I remember a lot more of what wasn't proved than what actually was proved, some of it for good reason, some not.
Actually, I remember a lot more of what wasn't proved than what actually was proved, some of it for good reason, some not.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests