Is this where I go “actually it took 83 pages to set up an extremely rigorous system and then a couple of lines to show you could use it to prove 1+1=2”?
The proof might be somewhat lengthy, but it is quite rigorous.
And shortly after that some other guy proved that he was wrong. More specifically he proved that you cannot prove that 1+1=2. More more specifically he proved that you cannot prove a system using the system.
Ehh…
So, it’s more a case that the system cannot prove it’s own consistency (a system cannot prove it won’t lead to a contradiction). So the proof is valid within the system, but the validity of the system is what was considered suspect (i.e. we cannot prove it won’t produce a contradiction from that system alone).
These days we use relative consistency proofs - that is we assume system A is consistent and model system B in it thus giving “If A is consistent, then so too must B”.
As much as I hate to admit it, classical set theory has been fairly robust - though intuitionistic logic makes better philosophical sense. Fortunately both are equiconsistent (each can be used to imply the consistency of the other).
Yk thats something some religious folks gotta understand.
What are you talking about, filthy infidel? My holy book contains the single, eternal truth! It says so right here in my holy book!
The best thing is when the holy book doesn’t claim to contain the single, eternal truth, because it contains hundreds of contradicting truths of varying eternality due to being written by countless authors over more than a thousand years… and yet people still tell you it unanimously supports their single eternal truth
Dumbfuckery at its finest…
Sure, but I can hear em now. “If you can’t prove a system using the system, then this universe (i.e. this “system”) can not create (i.e. “prove”) itself! It implies the existance of a greater system outside this system! And that system is MY GOD!”
Torturing language a bit of a speciality for the charlatan.
In logic class we kinda did prove most of the integer operations, but it was more like (extremely shortened and not properly written)
If 1+1=2 and 1+1+1=3 then prove that 1+2=3
2 was just a shortened representation of 1+1 so technically you were proving that 1+1 plus 1 equals 1+1+1.
Really fun stuff. It took a long while to reach division
It took a long while to reach division
and even longer to reach long division?
None of that sounded fun…
Lambda calculus be like
Presumably you were starting with a fundamental axiom such as 1 + 1 = 2, which is the difficult one to prove because it’s so fundamental
I find this axiomatization of the naturals quite neat:
- Zero is a natural number. 0∈ℕ
- For every natural number there exists a succeeding natural number. ∀n∈ℕ: s(n)∈ℕ (s denotes the successor function)
Now the neat part: If 0 is a constant, then s(0) is also a constant. So we can invent a name for that constant and call it “1.” Now s(s(0)) is a constant, too. Call it “2” and proceed to invent the natural numbers.
What’s missing here os the definition that we’re working in base 10. While it won’t be a proof, Fibbonaci has his nice little Liber Abbaci where he explains arabic numerals. A system of axioms for base 10, a definition of addition and your succession function would suffice. Probably what the originals were going for, but I can’t imagine how that would take 86 pages. Reading it’s been on my todo list, but I doubt I’ll manage 86 pages of modern math designed to be harder to read than egyptian hieroglyphs.
That axiomisation is incomplete as it doesn’t preclude stuff like loops, a predecessor to zero or a second number line.
I think you are missing some properties of successors (uniqueness and s(n) different than any m<= n)
That would avoid “branching” of two different successors to n and loops in which a successor is a smaller number than n
There are non-standard models of arithmetic. They follow the original first-order Peano axioms and any theorem about the naturals is true for them, but they have some wacky extra stuff in them like you mention.
Not sure what you mean by ‘loops’ - except perhaps modular arithmetic, but there are no natural numbers that are negative - you may be thinking of integers, which is constructed from the natural numbers. Similarly, rational numbers, real numbers, and complex numbers are also constructed from the naturals. Complex numbers are often expressed as though they’re two dimensional, since the imaginary part cannot be properly reduced, e.g. 3+2i.
I recommend this playlist by mathematician another roof: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsdeQ7TnWVm_EQG1rmb34ZBYe5ohrkL3t
They build the whole modern number system ‘from scratch’
I know how how natural numbers work, but the axioms in the comment i replied to are not enough to define them.
Not sure what you mean by ‘loops’
There could be a number n such that
m=s(n)andn=s(m). This would be precluded by taking the axiom of induction or the trichotomy axiom.If we only take the latter we can still make a second number line, that runs “parallel” to the “propper number line” like:
n,s(n),s(s(n)),s(s(s(n))),... 0,s(0),s(s(0)),s(s(s(0))),...there are no natural numbers that are negative
I know, but the given axioms don’t preclude it. Under the peano axioms it’s explicitly spelled out:
0 is not the successor of any natural number
It’s only difficult to prove if you somehow aren’t able to observe objects in real world.
That’s just empirical data, not a mathematical axiom. I know it’s true, you know it’s true but this is math as philosophy not math as a tool
Yeah, that’s what meant with “2 is just the shortened representation of 1+1”.
Same with 1+1+1=3, really. We need to decide the value of 1,2,3,4… Before we can do anything. In hindsight if you think about it, for someone that doesn’t know the value of the symbols we use to represent numbers, any combination that mixes numbers requires the axiom of 1+1+1+1+… = X
I’d be surprised if someone proved that something equals 5 without any kind of axiom that already makes 5 equal to another thing.
I like how it’s valid to use “more specifically” as you’re specifying what exactly he did, but in both cases those are more general claims rather than more specific ones.
Both “specifically” and “generally” would work.
Yeah, but how many pages did it take?
As many as needed.
But if it’s less than 83 do we really know if it’s better than whatever the initial 1+1 guy wrote?
you cannot prove a system using the system.
Doesn’t that only apply for sufficiently complicated systems? Very simple systems could be provably self-consistent.
It applies to systems that are complex enough to formulate the Godel sentence, i.e. “I am unprovable”. Gödel did this using basic arithmetic. So, any system containing basic arithmetic is either incomplete or inconsistent. I believe it is still an open question in what other systems you could express the Gödel sentence.
I think it’s true for any system. And I’d say mathematics or just logic are simple enough. Every system stems from unprovable core assumptions.
Gödel has entered the chat.
One year to prove it, 82 years for that banger of a title
Pffh, Terrence Howard will disprove it in only 4 pages!
/s
