>>11177164>2+2=4 without any proof, I can also just assume 2+2=5. no, not really. the assumptions of math are peano's axioms. (in addition to the axioms of logic and set theory.)
the symbol 4 is thus defined as the successor to the symbol 3, which is defined as the successor to the symbol 2, which is defined as the successor to the symbol 1, which is defined as the lowest integer. (you could go one step further and define 0 to be the lowest integer and it makes no difference.)
if you assumed 2+2=5, and you accepted the definition of 2, then then symbol "5" would simply be the successor to the symbol 3 and nothing would change, except you'd need to change some symbols around so that they accord with the meanings implicit in the peano axioms.
please pass sophomore year before shitposting.
