• 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.