In the most complex way you can, prove to me that 1+1=2. This

File: Principia_Mathematica_54-43.png (43KB, 800x333px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 800x333px

go read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principia_Mathematica

>>8791494
The Euler characteristic of a compact oriented surface is 2g-2, where g is the genus of the surface. Thus for the 2-torus, whose genus is clearly 1, we have that the Euler characteristic is 0. On the other hand, by definition, the Euler characteristic is also the alternating sum of the Betti numbers. The torus is being connected its zeroth Betti number is 1 and, by Poincaré duality, its second Betti number is 1 as well. It's also not hard to see that the fundamental group has two generators and is abelian and thus, by the Hurewitz theorem, the first Betti number of the torus is 2. Combining everything we get that 1-2+1=0 or, in other words, 1+1=2. QED

>>8791498

The meme occurs on page 379 of Volume I, of the three-volume work. About another 1600 pages follow.

At one point Whitehead and Russell had wanted to devote a fourth volume to geometry, but they were "intellectually exhausted" and never got round to it.

>>8791494
well if a + b = c then a + b = c no way around it, if all the number symbols were changed around it doesn't change the face of a + b = c

>>8791494
What's wrong with Peano axioms?

>>8791494
dumb frogposter

>>8791494
Assume for a moment that there was a thing that could not be divided. If this were the case, then you would be part of that thing, and therefore could not consider it. Thus, there is at least one thing that is outside of yourself, as you are observing it. Let that thing be represented by the marking "1." Since that thing is something you can imagine, and define in some way, it has an identity. Let all things that have an identity share the label of that which can be represented by "1." As many things as you can label or imagine as definite and separate entities are all things that can be separately referred do as a "1." Now, hold the idea of a "1" in your head, and simultaneously think of another "1." This process is additive, and will be represented as "+." When you imagine a "1" and another "1," and apply the additive process, that will result in a larger group that is a collection of the identities you are grouping together. The amount of identities you group together can go on forever, but when you just take "1" and "1" and apply the additive process, you will arrive at a number called "2." This entire thing is represented as an equation because the number "2" is a relabeling of quantity, meaning that it can be broken down into exactly as many identities as you have combined within that group. This process of equating numbers of identities with labels for that total number is symbolized with "=." Therefore, 1 + 1 = 2, Q.E.D.

>>8791494
>In the most complex way you can
Why? Haven't you heard of Occam's Razor?

>>8793204
If all doctors had used occum's razor, everyone would have a bad case of the cold. An example that occum's razor don't always work.

>>8793202
A finely tossed word salad indeed

>>8793253
That's not a good comparison. You could say the same about mathematicians, physicists or engineers. Obviously part of your job in STEM is to look deeper than face value, but you gotta be efficient. No use spending time doing redundant stuff.

>>8793253
Except no it wouldn't because you would have to pull an assload of horseshit out of your ass in order to explain away brain cancer as cold somehow. You'd have to explain, ad hoc, because it happens to be fucking wrong, how every symptom of brain cancer is caused by a cold. The current explanation of cancer is actually much simpler, than trying to sell a cold as a thing that could make tumors, or cause any other fucking symptom any sickness could possibly have (since, remember we can explain away any disease as a cold).

An inappropriate use of Occam's Razor would be applying it in every situation where you get a small, but unexpected anomaly in an experiment, and always ignoring it because it IS more likely that is just a minor equipment error, rather than actually investigating it.

>>8791494
Well... the most complex would involve \sqrt{-1}...

File: 1338094919781.jpg (27KB, 532x427px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 532x427px

>>8793342

>>8791509
>clearly

You have one apple. Tommy has one apple. Tommy gives you his apple. How many apples do you have now?

Made it nice and easy for a brainlet such as yourself. Go back to /b.

>>8791494
1 and 2 are just pictures to represent an abstract concept.

Go grab an apple now grab another, now count them, how many do you have retard?

>>8791494

Stay with me.

a+a=2a

Apply a=1

1+1=2(1)

2(1)= 2

Thereforst thoumst gets

1+1 = 2