why does 1+1=2?

[Harold O'brien]

that standard intuition is if you have one apple and you add another you have two apples

but what if you have a bucket of water and a bucket of salt and add them together? then you get 1+1=1

or add fire to fuel you get 1+1=0

or something like this: , 1+1=many?

this is why it is clear math is purely a construct

 

[thecel]

my mind so dirty I saw only rainbow dicks in the video’s thumbnail

 

[the BULL]

Ahahahah, you Always sum the same object or something that can be expressed in the same unity of measurement. If you sum One Apple and One Orange, you get One Apple and One Orange. Math doesn't speak like that

 

[ropemax]

Because the jews said so

 

[Harold O'brien]

Ahahahah, you Always sum the same object or something that can be expressed in the same unity of measurement. If you sum One Apple and One Orange, you get One Apple and One Orange. Math doesn't speak like that

but you have two objects

the unit of measurement is arbitrary. the reality is that "adding" two things together produces wildly varying results. we only go with the basic one because it's the most common in nature from two standard solids

 

[Deleted member 18244]

Numbers make my tummy hurt

 

[Deleted member 18849]

Yeah. As others said, you add the same kind of physical quantities whether discrete or continuous.

1 meter + 1 meter = 2 meters. You can't add 1 meter and 1 second = 2, 2 what?, in the same way you won't add 1 bucket of salt and 1 bucket of water = ..
You could add their total atoms' mass and so on. Because then the unit would be 10^(-x) kgs.

 

[Harold O'brien]

Yeah. As others said, you add the same kind of physical quantities whether discrete or continuous.

1 meter + 1 meter = 2 meters. You can't add 1 meter and 1 second = 2, 2 what?, in the same way you won't add 1 bucket of salt and 1 bucket of water = ..
You could add their total atoms' mass and so on. Because then the unit would be 10^(-x) kgs.

you are using the axiom of 1+1=2 to attack my position that the axiom of 1+1=2 is invented by humans. do you not see how this is dogma?

why do you only consider standard discrete solids regarding addition? because they are the most common things in nature. its that simple

 

[Deleted member 19896]

my mind so dirty I saw only rainbow dicks in the video’s thumbnail

 

[ChristianChad]

Yeah. As others said, you add the same kind of physical quantities whether discrete or continuous.

1 meter + 1 meter = 2 meters. You can't add 1 meter and 1 second = 2, 2 what?, in the same way you won't add 1 bucket of salt and 1 bucket of water = ..
You could add their total atoms' mass and so on. Because then the unit would be 10^(-x) kgs.

Well said

 

[Deleted member 18849]

you are using the axiom of 1+1=2 to attack my position that the axiom of 1+1=2 is invented by humans. do you not see how this is dogma?

why do you only consider standard discrete solids regarding addition? because they are the most common things in nature. its that simple

I didn't consider standard discrete solids only. I added a meter and a meter, continuous. 1 + 1 = 2 is a side effect of 2 physical things/quantities of one kind being added based on observation

 

[Deleted member 13787]

well i think it doesnt work because you didnt add two buckets, you took the contents of two buckets and dumped it into one
its the container that defines the quantity, is it not?

 

[Harold O'brien]

I didn't consider standard discrete solids only. I added a meter and a meter, continuous. 1 + 1 = 2 is a side effect of 2 physical things of one kind being added based on observation

you are still using the axiom of 1+1=2 which is derived from standard discrete solids.

 

[Harold O'brien]

well i think it doesnt work because you didnt add two buckets, you took the contents of two buckets and dumped it into one
its the container that defines the quantity, is it not?

we're only considering the contents of the buckets. when we add one contents to another we are left with one content

 

[Deleted member 18849]

you are still using the axiom of 1+1=2 which is derived from standard discrete solids.

No. A meter and meter = 2 meters has nothing to do with standard discrete solids. You can literally use s = u x t , multiplication , addition doesn't matter. No one gives a shit where the history of 1 + 1 = 2 comes from. Get over it.

 

[Deleted member 13787]

this is why it is clear math is purely a construct

i think math isnt a construct, rather we use it do quantify constructs

. You can't add 1 meter and 1 second = 2, 2 what?

if we had a socially constructed term that included meters and seconds it would work
it just depends on what youre adding

 

[Harold O'brien]

No. A meter and meter = 2 meters has nothing to do with standard discrete solids. You can literally use s = u x t , multiplication , addition doesn't matter. No one gives a shit where the history of 1 + 1 = 2 comes from. Get over it.

retard

 

[Deleted member 13787]

we're only considering the contents of the buckets. when we add one contents to another we are left with one content

yes because content is a broad term
this is an issue with the constructed language we use, not math itself

 

[Harold O'brien]

i think math isnt a construct, rather we use it do quantify constructs

if we had a socially constructed term that included meters and seconds it would work
it just depends on what youre adding

but it is also a construct itself

unless you think our perception of reality isn't heavily tied to human consciousness and the environment we find ourselves in?

 

[Harold O'brien]

yes because content is a broad term
this is an issue with the constructed language we use, not math itself

all philosophy is a language game. math is also a language that is just applied philosophy. none of it means anything

 

[incel194012940]

I suspect it's an ancient religious idea related to the belief of the immortality of the soul

 

[Deleted member 13787]

but it is also a construct itself

unless you think our perception of reality isn't heavily tied to human consciousness and the environment we find ourselves in?

i think math isnt a construct but rather depends on constructs
theres no math without contructs, WE say that something is two of something

 

[Deleted member 18849]

retard

A meter is a ratio. A ratio of say specific human height - the king of a tribe. Just because it happens and the ball you kicked traveled exactly 2 king of the tribe ratio doesn't mean it's operated at discrete numbers. It's all the real numbers, Dunning Kruger.

 

[Tom Jones]

Bro this is not right man.

Straight up abuse of math

 

[Harold O'brien]

A meter is a ratio. A ratio of say specific human height - the king of a tribe. Just because it happens and the ball you kicked traveled exactly 2 king of the tribe ratio doesn't mean it's operated at discrete numbers. It's all the real numbers, Dunning Kruger.

do you think a meter is a fundamental part of the universe and not made up?

how do you measure anything without defining basic arithmetic first?

basic arithmetic follows from observation. it's a construct

 

[Harold O'brien]

i think math isnt a construct but rather depends on constructs
theres no math without contructs, WE say that something is two of something

that's an obtuse way of saying it's a construct imo

 

[Deleted member 18849]

do you think a meter is a fundamental part of the universe and not made up?

how do you measure anything without defining basic arithmetic first?

basic arithmetic follows from observation. it's a construct

Wrong reply again. Numbers are ratios of physical quantities / things, it has nothing to do with discrete solids. Read again my first reply. You for some reason decided that I was making a case for arithmetic having no relationship with observation.

 

[Harold O'brien]

Wrong reply again. Numbers are ratios of physical quantities / things, it has nothing to do with discrete solids. Read again my first reply. You for some reason decided that I was making a case of arithmetic having no relationship with observation.

but what are numbers derived from? arithmetic. which is derived from observation ffs

 

[Deleted member 13787]

that's an obtuse way of saying it's a construct imo

yeah
i was going to say theres some universal law behind it
but no, math only works if our definitions of things work

 

[Deleted member 18849]

but what are numbers derived from? arithmetic. which is derived from observation ffs

JFL where did I say that arithmetic has no relationship with observation you Dunning Kruger?

 

[Eduardo DOV]

you are using the axiom of 1+1=2 to attack my position that the axiom of 1+1=2 is invented by humans. do you not see how this is dogma?

why do you only consider standard discrete solids regarding addition? because they are the most common things in nature. its that simple

1+1=2 is not an axiom of anything

you sum equal things.
you add equal things, adding started with stones/seeds, EQUAL things. Each of this things we call UNITY.
1 little stone
1 little sheep
1 little seed
1 ANYTHING

1 is a symbol that is expressing the smallest integer quantity that you can have of that thing
2 is a symbol that is expressing the second smalles integer quantity that you can have of that thing

So, intuition says that:
1 of that thing + 1 of that thing = 2 of that thing.

1 of that thing + 1 of OTHER thing = 1 of that thing + 1 of OTHER thing
or.... 1 OF OTHER THING, the new thing that is equal this SUM:
1 OF OTHER THING = 1 of that thing + 1 of OTHER thing

, if we're dealing with different things, we then need to use letters. Let's suppose we had two types of stone, and we could fit a unit of each type to form a unit of a third type
type a, type b and type c, then:
1a + 1b = 1c


This is the kind of thing that is so obvious that no one thinks too much about it. In short:
When we write 1+1=2 we are meaning we're saying each number is referring to the amount of the same thing. In a pure form, this common unity would be the size of a unit(1cm for example) of the ruler you are using, in an abstract form its called a real line.

 

[Harold O'brien]

yeah
i was going to say theres some universal law behind it
but no, math only works if our definitions of things work

people are so dogmatic about it because it's taught in school (rightfully) like religion once was. they get angry at the very notion it's not unquestionable fact

 

[Deleted member 13787]

people are so dogmatic about it because it's taught in school (rightfully) like religion once was. they get angry at the very notion it's not unquestionable fact

we were taught in philosophy class that its an absolute truth

 

[Harold O'brien]

JFL where did I say that arithmetic has no relationship with observation you Dunning Kruger?

here:

Yeah. As others said, you add the same kind of physical quantities whether discrete or continuous.

1 meter + 1 meter = 2 meters. You can't add 1 meter and 1 second = 2, 2 what?, in the same way you won't add 1 bucket of salt and 1 bucket of water = ..
You could add their total atoms' mass and so on. Because then the unit would be 10^(-x) kgs.

 

[Deleted member 18849]

here:

I didn't say it has nothing to do with observation, the bull said a similar thing to my comment, and you actually liked his reply you utter Dunning Kruger. You have to use the same PQ for it to make sense. You still are in r/lostredditors mode.

 

[Incellectually_Shy]

It's been several years. I'll answer next month, if...

 

[Deleted member 18244]

It's been several years. I'll answer next month, if...

 

[Harold O'brien]

1+1=2 is not an axiom of anything

you sum equal things.
you add equal things, adding started with stones/seeds, EQUAL things. Each of this things we call UNITY.
1 little stone
1 little sheep
1 little seed
1 ANYTHING

1 is a symbol that is expressing the smallest integer quantity that you can have of that thing
2 is a symbol that is expressing the second smalles integer quantity that you can have of that thing

So, intuition says that:
1 of that thing + 1 of that thing = 2 of that thing.

1 of that thing + 1 of OTHER thing = 1 of that thing + 1 of OTHER thing
or.... 1 OF OTHER THING, the new thing that is equal this SUM:
1 OF OTHER THING = 1 of that thing + 1 of OTHER thing

, if we're dealing with different things, we then need to use letters. Let's suppose we had two types of stone, and we could fit a unit of each type to form a unit of a third type
type a, type b and type c, then:
1a + 1b = 1c


This is the kind of thing that is so obvious that no one thinks too much about it. In short:
When we write 1+1=2 we are meaning we're saying each number is referring to the amount of the same thing. In a pure form, this common unity would be the size of a unit(1cm for example) of the ruler you are using, in an abstract form its called a real line.

but I could say I have two objects or three ideas. these don't need to be the same

in fact a+b+c has three components, yet each one is different

 

[Deleted member 18849]

I didn't say it has nothing to do with observation, the bull said a similar thing to my comment, and you actually liked his reply you utter Dunning Kruger. You have to use the same PQ for it to make sense. You still are in r/lostredditors mode.

Here you go Kruger

I didn't consider standard discrete solids only. I added a meter and a meter, continuous. 1 + 1 = 2 is a side effect of 2 physical things/quantities of one kind being added based on observation

 

[Deprived]

There is an entire math book prooving 1+1=2. Not joking the first 1000 pages are dedicated to it.

Anyways what's done in pure mathematics has real world uses when applied. The computer your writing this post on was the result of a mathematical equation. So it doesn't really matter what subhumans like you think.

 

[Harold O'brien]

Here you go Kruger

the entire point of this thread is that it has everything to do with observation. just leave, it's clear the level of discussion is too high for you

 

[Eduardo DOV]

but what are numbers derived from? arithmetic. which is derived from observation ffs

the numbers are always referring to the same unit, in any equation, from the simplest of school to the most complex ones, if in the same equation there is a "1+2+3.5+4.7", each of these numbers are referring to the quantity of the SAME unit.

but I could say I have two objects or three ideas. these don't need to be the same

Oh, i see, your dumb head is confusing SUMMING with MIXING things together and forming other things. Are you fucking troling?

The mathematical addition is about GROUPING EQUAL objects.
you can only have a sum math result when you add things that have the SAME unit.

you cannot, for example, add 1kg to 1meter and have a result, it appear no where in physics, it makes NO SENSE. You could have these units multiplying or dividing, resulting in another physical unit. For example speed, it makes sense to DIVIDE distance per time.

 

[Deleted member 18849]

the entire point of this thread is that it has everything to do with observation. just leave, it's clear the level of discussion is too high for you

The entire irony of this thread is that I wrote from the beginning 2, 3 posts it has to do with observation, yet your examples with adding salt bucket with water bucket were crap. Learn to read instead of embarrassing yourself next time.

why does 1+1=2?

that standard intuition is if you have one apple and you add another you have two apples but what if you have a bucket of water and a bucket of salt and add them together? then you get 1+1=1 or add fire to fuel you get 1+1=0 or something like this: , 1+1=many? this is why it is clear math...

looksmax.org

I didn't consider standard discrete solids only. I added a meter and a meter, continuous. 1 + 1 = 2 is a side effect of 2 physical things/quantities of one kind being added based on observation

 

[Harold O'brien]

There is an entire math book prooving 1+1=2. Not joking the first 1000 pages are dedicated to it.
View attachment 1749658
Anyways what's done in pure mathematics has real world uses when applied. The computer your writing this post on was the result of a mathematical equation. So it doesn't really matter what subhumans like you think.

the book is just outlining axiomatic set theory, where 1+1=2 is one result. (based on axioms surprise surprise)

what you have just spouted is a common normie misinterpretation

 

[Deprived]

the book is just outlining axiomatic set theory, where 1+1=2 is one result. (based on axioms surprise surprise)

what you have just spouted is a common normie misinterpretation

Missed the point. I'm saying this thread = pointless cuz the assumption of 1+1=2 just works.

 

[Harold O'brien]

Missed the point. I'm saying this thread = pointless cuz the assumption of 1+1=2 just works.

your reply = pointless because my criticism just works

 

[Eduardo DOV]

but I could say I have two objects or three ideas. these don't need to be the same

in fact a+b+c has three components, yet each one is different

objects and ideas are NOT the same thing.
So you CAN NOT sum this.
it makes NO SENSE to WRITE 1object + 1 idea and expect a result from it.
maybe you could write 1object + 1 idea = 1result, or 2 results or 3 or 5 or watever you'll get in the case. But this is NOT math.

in MATH sum is about summing EQUAL things, things of the SAME unity.

You can have problems like "you have 7 rabbits, each rabbit has 4 legs, 13 chickens and each chicken has 2 legs
what is the total of legs?", well in this case you're treating like the legs are all the same type of leg, so its THE SAME unity, like if the rabbits and the chickend had the same type of leg.
So you can sum and have a result of legs.
7*4 + 13*2 = 44 legs.

 

[Deprived]

your reply = pointless because my criticism just works

Works how? By engaging other basement dwelling subhumans such as yourself? Congrats!

 

[Harold O'brien]

the numbers are always referring to the same unit, in any equation, from the simplest of school to the most complex ones, if in the same equation there is a "1+2+3.5+4.7", each of these numbers are referring to the quantity of the SAME unit.


Oh, i see, your dumb head is confusing SUMMING with MIXING things together and forming other things. Are you fucking troling?

The mathematical addition is about GROUPING EQUAL objects.
you can only have a sum math result when you add things that have the SAME unit.

you cannot, for example, add 1kg to 1meter and have a result, it appear no where in physics, it makes NO SENSE. You could have these units multiplying or dividing, resulting in another physical unit. For example speed, it makes sense to DIVIDE distance per time.

summing and mixing are the exact same thing because no two things are identical

 

[Eduardo DOV]

you are confusing mathematical sum with sum in a "freestyle" sense.