• unwarlikeExtortion@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    What’s missing here os the definition that we’re working in base 10. While it won’t be a proof, Fibbonaci has his nice little Liber Abbaci where he explains arabic numerals. A system of axioms for base 10, a definition of addition and your succession function would suffice. Probably what the originals were going for, but I can’t imagine how that would take 86 pages. Reading it’s been on my todo list, but I doubt I’ll manage 86 pages of modern math designed to be harder to read than egyptian hieroglyphs.

    • bleistift2@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      15 hours ago

      That ‘86 pages’ factoid is misleading. They weren’t trying to prove that 1+1=2. They were trying to build a foundation for mathematics, and at some point along the way that prove fell out of the equations.

      • unwarlikeExtortion@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 hours ago

        Yeah, I assumed. No way 86 pages are needed for a proof of ‘1+1=2’.

        That being said, it’d be nice for there to actually be a “proof” of 1+1=2, made as concise and simple as possible, while retaining all the precision required of such proof, including a complete set of axioms.

        This, obviously isn’t is, nor does it try to. It’s not the “1+1=2” book, ot’s the theoretical fpindations of matheđatics book. Nothing wrong with that.