There is no basis to arithmetics other than the empirical observation that the laws of arithmetics are true.
>>16920428>empirical observation that the laws of arithmetics are true.Never happened>There is no basis to arithmeticsAgreed.
>>16920428Arithmetic is true by definition and its rules are inspired by empirical observations about innate human number sense.
>>16920431>Arithmetic is true by definitionEpic
>>16920432Yeah. It's almost like mathematics is one big tautology from inception. Whoda thunk.
>>16920430Blessed knower who knows.
>>16920430>computers don’t existyoure posting on 4chan retard shill
>>16920428WOAH YOU BE TELLING ME DEM MATH CANNOT PROVE ITS CONSISTENCY N SHIETDAS SUM CRAZY SHIET MAYNE
>>16920432So is epic just epic by definition too or you have some other proof that epic is epic?
>>16920437yupmindbogglin' sum people fink sum platonic math realm out there
>>16920428top kek. thanks for the chuckles.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuseppe_Peanohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms
>>16920428>>16922157and to grind it in.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formulario_mathematicohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arithmetices_principia,_nova_methodo_exposita
>hey we found something that creates a paradox>"just make it illegal to express lol"
>>16920428Wow what revelation, we have to verify with our own senses that our abstractions are true, I thought they were just true because some big guy said so.
>>16922159Illegal in the sense of ungrammatical. Why would you want to compile syntactical structures without a clear semantical behavior?
>>16924007What senses?
>>16924311The same ones being used to make those empirical observations that validate arithmetic, obviously.
>>16922159since set theory axioms clearly forbid certain sets from existing, the "set of anything that can be expressed in arbitrary terms" would include forbidden sets and therefore be equivalent to a domain error...
