Proof 1+1=2
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 14 фев 2024
- 🎓Become a Math Master with my courses!
www.brithemathguy.com/store
🛜 Connect with me on my Website
www.brithemathguy.com
🙏Support me by becoming a channel member!
/ @brithemathguy
#maths #proof #brithemathguy
This video was partially created using Manim. To learn more about animating with Manim, check out:manim.community
Disclaimer: This video is for entertainment purposes only and should not be considered academic. Though all information is provided in good faith, no warranty of any kind, expressed or implied, is made with regards to the accuracy, validity, reliability, consistency, adequacy, or completeness of this information. Viewers should always verify the information provided in this video by consulting other reliable sources.
How teachers explain math:
1 car + 1 bike = 6 wheels
there’s not really any other way to explain this concept 😂
4-wheeled bikes @@ccmplayer87
Real Analysis in a nutshell:
Brilliant, now prove e*e = e^2.
Engineering students don't see a problem
e xor 2 isn’t e*e tho
apply the definition of an exponent
@@like_that4966 But why does raising to the power of 2 have the same effect as multiplying by itself? Stating the obvious isn’t a proof.
@@marcusscience23
That's what raising to the power of 2 is defined as, multiplying it by itself
we can't prove why that's defined that way
Proof 1 is the only successor of 0
😂🤣😭
I think, bro forgot order of operations
Not too circular reasoning.
you have to assume you're dealing with a linear function in order to make it work, 1+1 = S(1+0) => S(1) + S(0) => 1+1 = 2
No. By definition of S, ∀x,y(x + S(y) = S(x + y))
Now prove 0+1=1.
0+1=0+S(0)=S(0+0)=S(0)=1
For addition, 0 is the identity element.
For any identity elements e and for all x,
xe = x
Hence 0 + 1 = 1 QED
@@like_that4966if we are in the system, where a op b = b op a not axiom, then we need proof, that 0+a=a (if we only know, that a+0=a)
@@like_that4966 Prove 0 is the identity element.
Nah just kidding, I know it's an axiom, but that shows how if you backtrack enough, it all ends in "because we said so".
How to do tetration and pentation for non integer? Like 2^^½ or 5^^^⅜?
ruclips.net/video/qdqPTEpq5Xw/видео.htmlsi=32UNXu1k_Iy5mAAu
It explains how to approximate Euler’s number tetrated by half
Yes, we need that
2^^(1/2) is the same as x^x or x^^2=2 which is about 1.56 but idk how does 2^^(2/3) works if its a non integer but y^^(1/x) is just z^^x=y while z being the answer (i think im not sure)
@@Softcap tetration is not comunicative
this might be wrong, but you could take some kind of higher level root, like tetration root 2 would be the solution of x^x. you might be able to the the same thing you can do with exponents, where you can split x^a/b into (x^a)^1/b, which then becomes the bth root of x^a. so i guess 2^^1/2 could be whatever x where x^x = 2? or 5^^^3/8 could be whatever x where x^^^8 = 5^^^3... idk
Mon Cher Zeke,
Il y a clairement 3 corps dans l'expression du 4°axiome de Peano :
2 entiers qui ont le même successeur sont égaux.
Les 2 entiers et le successeur sont les 3 corps,donc sans solution analytique finie.
Pa ailleurs,la simple expression 'entier naturel' est la prémisse d'un syllogisme purement postulant.Stuart Mills à démontré😅 que me syllogisme est un paralogisme.
Enfin,si nous excluons l'idée reçue de l'existence des entiers,puisqu'ils sont une expression de la 'limite'
,inaccessible de tout nombre( nous n'atteignons jamais une limite,nous la franchissons seulement),aucun nombre n'est identique à lui même par l'infinité de sa mantisse,invérifiable.
Ainsi 1+1=2 ou 1+1=1+1 ne sont pas des opérations reproductibles donc ne peuvent pas former une loi ni qui plus est un anneau.Par l'absurde,1+1=1 est la moins mauvaise option,refusant la succession ou la translation.
C'est aussi un problème à 3 corps donc,mais plus proche de celui à 2 corps,analytique.
Les maths sont utiles comme outils de production mais pas comme critique des rapports sociaux de production.
Cordialement
Jean-marie
Did this take 2 weeks to prove
On the contrary, it took thousands of years lol
Nice
now proof that S(1+0) is equal to S(1)
😅
0 being the additive identity is an axiom
He just did. Check your eyes.
1+0=1 by definition of addition.
k, but if this gives you the Naturals and Godel Numbers are Naturals, then you have a problem, because Godel Numbers lack order. so one of the defining features of the Naturals, specifically the feature which allows the Successor function to map to the Naturals, can be separated from the Naturals.
that's... definitely not what I would call 'rigorous'.
drive.google.com/file/d/1UxvspGOq7w5UzBHWGWLqzw80tbwR5KpN/view?usp=sharing
Très Cher Ami,Dear friend,
Ton raisonnement se fonde sur l'axiomatique de Peano(translation).k.Göedel a démontré l'incomplétude de toute axiomatique il y a 1 siècle.Voila pour l'algèbre.On the other hand,
a distinguished gentleman has cleared the Ferma theorem.The Pythagore famous one was then just an exception,without any general solution.This is about geometry.
Finalement,ni 1+1=2,ni 1+1=1 ne sont démontrables,puisqu'ils forment ensemble un problème à 3 corps,donc sans solution finie à
l'image de notre vie.
But,are you sure that intergers do exist out of our mind ?
Cordialement,Truly Yours.
J’ai beau essayer, je n’ai pas réussi à trouver de signification dans ton commentaire ; que voulais-tu dire ? J’ai des difficultés à voir ce qu’a le problème à trois corps à faire avec les axiomes de Peano. “1+1=2” a bien été défini plusieurs fois, mais cela étant, on pourrait toujours dire que 1+1 = 0 (modulo 2).
Bro this is an aconx which are the fundamental of maths
Another example of posting for clicks without entertaining or informing the audience.
lame
Shut up
Rtp - 1+1= 2
Let us assume that 1+1=2 (why not?)
2=2
LHS = RHS
Hence proved
1+1 = 3
Let us assume that 1+1=3
3=3
LHS = RHS
Hence proved
See your logic?
You can’t assume the answer when it comes to math proofs, unless you’re doing a contradiction. Otherwise you get some messy logic
Circular reasoning…
Let 1+1≠2
-) 1≠1
But 1=1 so
-) 1+1=2
If you have to prove 1+1=2, of course you can't assume 2-1=1, it's a consequence of the theorem you want to prove.
Binary
What is succesor?
It's a function S : ℕ → ℕ defined recursively as follows:
S(0) = 1
n + 0 = n
n + S(m) = S(n + m)
Note that this also defines addition of natural numbers.
I dont get it..
Watch the full vid
Successors basically mean the next number.