In all of my mathematical life I have never seen anyone prove 1+1 to be 0, 3 or anything strange like that. If someone could provide me with a link that shows me this I would love it. I’ve always had people tell me this, but no one has ever proven it. The only way you can make 1+1 not equal 2 is using some BS language trick (there are no mathematical tricks). 1+1 is always 2!
The only thing I can think of that comes close to this is when a physic’s professor was talking about what one is. “What’s one person? We’re constantly breathing in and out new molecules, dead skin is falling off, etc…” Non-mathematical people always say that 1+1 doesn’t always equal 2, please, enlighten me.
Did some googling
nrich.maths.org.uk/askedNRIC … /1496.html
after clicking the 3rd link I found this one (searched Whitehead and Russell)
newton.dep.anl.gov/newton/askasc … ATH049.HTM
I might (NOT! ) read the book.
[quote]In Principia (Whitehead & Russell) “1” is defined as the class of all unit
classes; probably a good book to avoid for most readers. Other possibili-
ties include Frege’s “Foundations of Arithmetic” or references to Peano’s
Postulates. Grappling with the axiomatic logic is not suitable for most of
us and these readings are difficult. Let me attempt an inadequate simplifi-
cation. Frege would say that a number “belongs to a concept” and is an
extension of that concept and then statements about numbers correspond to
“identities of concept”.
In the sense of counting, one apple and one orange represent identical
concepts even if apples are not oranges, so we write 1 = 1. Now 1 + 1 or
for that matter 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 (repeating) are represented in the
sense of identity by other symbols which, if arabic numerals are used, we
write as 2 or 5. The symbols are just compact notation for representation
of an identical “concept”. Frege stated that number is not anything
physical nor is it subjective. This may not be very satisfying but deep
philosophical questions about numbers may always remain unanswered in very
(don’t make me start a new thread )