>>14055632>Ok /Sci. Listen the fuck up.So if we actually look at the equation 1+1 = 2 we can see we are dealing with a few things. First we have addition (+), we have an equality (=) and we have the quantity's 1 and 2 which are both natural numbers (?)
>1. We must first start by defining equality.There are 3 property's that equality holds:
. The "reflexive property" states that for any quantity ?, ? = ?. Or, Any quantity is equal to itself.
. The "symmetric property" states that if ? = ?, then ? = ?. ? = ? => ? = ?
.The "Transitive property" stats that if ? = ? = ?, then ? = ?. So if ? = ? and ? = ? => ? = ?.
>2. We must now define natural numbers (?)For this we need to state some property's.
. 0 exists. so 0??
. Every number has a succeeding number 1, 2, 3, 4, ....... We define the successor of a number ? as S(?). So S(1) = 2, S(2) = 3 etc.
Because we are only dealing with natural numbers here (0, 1, 2, 3, ....) we don't need to consider the negative integers and so we must state this. So we say that the successive property is fouls for 0.
.There exists no natural number for which its successor is 0. S(n) =/= 0. This excludes the negative integers.
No two numbers have the same successor, and if they do, they must be equal.
. If S(?) = S(?), => ? = ?
.If 0 has a property that ? also has then, then S(?) has that property also. This effectively tells us that if a number is a natural number, its successor is a nautical number also.
>3. Finally we must define addition.??, ???:
.? + 0 = ?
.? + S(?) = S(? + ?)
So we can see that S(0) = 1 and S(1) = 2 = S(S(0))
>Proof:1 + 1 = S(0) + S(0) Now left is re write this as
? + S(?)), where ? = S(0) and ? = 0. We know this is equal to S(S(0) + 0) and using the fact that any k + 0 = 0, we can show this to be equal to S(S(0)), which is 2 by our definition of the successive function.
Therefor we have proved 1 + 1 = 2
I have never ever had sex.
