Prove that 1=1
>>17012011By the time you test it, it's already moved on from the original 1
>>17012011Because you get punished if you claim otherwise
>numbers are a property of the existential/universal quantifier>they describe how something exists starting with the existential quantifier>given that something already exists>we can assume that it occupies its own physical space>which means it exists as a single quantity >assume that observing it as a single quantity means it existstherefore anything that exists--ending with universal quantifier--has to be singularly quantifiable
>>17012011https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_identity
>>17012011"Nothing, no-thing, or no thing is the complete absence of anything, as the opposite of something and an antithesis of everything."0=x-xx=x
>>170120820=-x+x*
>>170120820 in nature is arbitrary, so the mathematics has a negative to positive value.
>>17012011Can prove it since its wrong. There are 2 different ones so they are not the same
>>170120111<>1 over mass x time, 1=1 over energy?
>>170120111=11-1 = 0quick eat dicks OP
>>17012403Which Is Far Different From Being Heavenous Heavenly, Right?
>>17012043
>>17012410
>>17012011What Does That Translate to, and What Is Your Aim By Asking, Does Your Aim Equate To What It Translates To
>>17012419>>17012422Kick a honey badger to heck. ?. *
>>17012422You dumb.
>>17012425"Chud""Demons""Competitive Authoritarianism"
"Chöd"
>>17012357Duration and entropy implies the 1you typed in the computa decayed by the time you typed the next 1
>>17012082Munch housens trilemma says ur wrong bubba
>>17012011Well equal means equal.And something is equal to itself by the definition of equal.So 1 = 1 lol.
>>17012514Circular reasoning
>>17012522Well it is more like a dot or a line considering = is the definition of 1's relation to 1. So in a sense it's made up. Lol.
>>17012522Circular Reasoning doesn't mean something is false. It means that everything in the circle is axiomatically assumed by the proposer.
>>17012011Lol.
>>17012546Circular reason means something is incapable of accepting true or false because it is fallacious, kinda like "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously", or "Self Referentiall incoherence"OP can be proved because Peano maths derive from the reflexive axiom x=x (put universal logic symbol on it for being extra technical)) but that axiom is posited because it's useful not something that is proven itself. This doesn't mean immediately "how can you claim to speak English if you don't think things equal themselves" but at least begins to indicate there is yet to be found epistemology more truth tracking than axiomatic logics which probably could come from any direction, probably physics.
>>17012011Because if it equalled 2, then it wouldn't equal one anymore.
>>17012011By definition, 1 = { nullset }.Then 1 is a set.For all x, (x is a member of 1) <=> (x is a member of 1) by tautologyThen, by the axiom of extensionality, it follows that 1 = 1.Q.E.D.
>>170120111 evaluates the same as 1 and thus the defining condition of = is satisfied.
>>17012011Creating another one, there are only 2 possible moves. Back to itself or forever different. Same with physics.The Banach–Tarski Paradoxhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s86-Z-CbaHA
>>170120111+1 = 1When you add two lumps of clay, you get another lump of clay
The problem with mathematics is its just glorified bean counting without considering the actual nature of reality.Yes, it works so far as calculating human stuff, working out how much debt you owe, how much material is needed to build a bridge, or even how to set a trajectory for an interplanetary probe But then Newtonian physics is also sufficient for most earthly calculations yet we know its not an entirely accurate description of reality.At this point the lawn mower mechanics squeal and claim "But its good enough!"Sure, its good enough for getting shit done but do not pretend for a moment that its some ultimate description of reality. Real scientists and mathematicians are concerned with absolutes, not with mere "close enough"Consider for a moment pi. Here we have a derivative from one of the most fundamental geometric constructions. Yet is can not be calculated with absolute precision. Or take yet another fundamental construct, the square root of 2. What can be simpler? Two unit lengths of 1 arranged at right angles and yet the diagonal between them is, just like pi, unsolvable to absolute precision.We have been stuck in this impasse ever since the ancient Greeks first discovered these anomalies thousands of years ago. It pissed them off no end but modern mathematics just passes them off as inconveniences to be papered over..>oh well that's odd, but lets move on, dont worry about it, we have a power station to build. The fact of the matter is we rely on a philosophical understanding of mathematics derived from counting the number of fingers on our hands, which we used to figure out how many sacks of grain should be traded for animal furs, without understanding the nature of numbers themselves. We make assumptions so outrageous but so ingrained that we dont even notice them. We assume that 1 means an identical and irrefutable value which holds true under all conditions at all times, and then we discard any other values associated with it. Its primitive.
>>17012778There is more empirical evidence on the contrary, that logic is doing special pleading by making itself exempt from the actual flux of reality full of quantum entropy and electron positron wonkiness. X=x is a nice rule but you must make yourself a platonist to hold this to be maximally correct.Nominalist counters like this are neither imeediately self defeating or parasitic as it uses logical structures to attack them. It can mean instead that identity or non contradiction has deeper substrates which localize them as rules with only some areas of applicability.
It's self evident because math isn't reality, it's a tool for observing and predicting parts of reality. We define what 1 means to begin with so we don't need to prove what it means for any intents or purposes, just like we don't need to prove that all bachelors are unmarried because that's what we decided the word bachelors means from the start.
anons ITT who are attempting to define "1" are missing the point. The expression "[x] = [x]" is always true no matter what you put in for [x] because that's what equality means.If OP wants a formal proof like a logic autist, where a proof is nothing more than a sequencde of written symbols, formal proof systems always have some form of "x = x" taken as an axiom
>>170120111 = 11 = 1Therefore 1 = 1 = 1We can now conclude 1 = 1.QED.
>>17012011>prove an axiom
