1+1=2

>>8822083
>which means that all my professors know the proof to the fundamental theorem of everything:
>1+1=2
No it doesn't

nobody has read that meme book especially after gödel btfo'd it

Brainlet here. How can 1+1=anything but 2?

>>8822087
Then why is it there?

>>8822104
to gather dust, what do you think?
I'm not memeing when I say nobody has read it

>>8822134
t. Fag salty that his professors can't even prove 1+1=2

Tell me, which 4-digit ranked uni do you attend?

>>8822104
>>8822087

PM is an ambitious curiosity in the history of mathematics and got certain things right. This is enough to preserve the text, despite no one ever reading it.

OP: yes, my alma mater has a complete copy of the second and final THREE-VOLUME edition of PM. My uni's version is a dark blue hardback, just like yours-albeit with two extra books. Judging by the photo, yours apparently does not, and so your university is a shithole by (one interpretation of) your own criterion.*

I bought a cheap reprint of the first edition of PM to have as a personal copy. To this, I added the appendices and glossaries of my uni's second edition, which I scanned and printed. Since the rest of the content is identical (Whitehead and Russell couldn't be fucked to actually /edit/ the thing, they just wanted to expand a bit), I have what amounts to a complete second edition.

*The notorious 1+1=2 paragraph occurs in Volume 1. Despite not seeing which volume that is, it's reasonable to assume that a stand-alone volume (in an incomplete set) is probably volume 1. Admittedly, the OP did not insist on a uni library having a complete edition, but I still say that the OP goes to a shit uni. :^)

>>8822144
I didn't know there were 3 volumes. Next time I go there I'll see if the rest are there too. They probably are.

>>8822093

change base
work in another structure
etc

>>8822151

You can read all about it on wiki.

Roughly speaking, the body of the work is divided into six parts, with (pretty much) two parts per volume:

logic, logic-stuff-to-set-up-before-arithmetic, cardinality, relation arithmetic, series, and "quantity" (build-up of real numbers, some stuff about vectors). So as you can see, toward the end they were veering toward geometry, finally. They had planned a further volume/further parts to tackle geometry, but they were drained when they were done with the three volumes so they never got round to it.

Assuming that the book in the OP is 2nd ed. V.1, then that one book contains ALL of the stuff which was not present in the first edition. These five chunks, in order, are as follows:

Intro, 2nd ed (in the front),

Appendices A,B,C (these tweak and even replace certain things), and

an actual damn glossary, "List of Definitions".

The latter four chunks appear at the back end of V.1. The rest of the second edition is a straight re-print of the first edition, just condensing the pages slightly, and correcting about 1-200 typos/errata which were present in the first edition.

>>8822093
In Boolean Algebra, 1+1 = 1

>>8822093
In usual arithmetic it can't but in mathematics one of the most important things is that everything has an underlying theory.

It is not about proving 1+1=2, it is about inventing a system of lower level logic from which you can prove that 1+1=2. This has many reasons but the most important is that arithmetic is not the only type of mathematics. Arithmetic is just algebra with numbers, but you can do algebra with anything. Notably, analysts will talk about integrals and derivatives but those have algebraic properties. Number theorists will talk about dirichlet multiplication of arithmetic functions, which also have algebraic properties. So there must be some underlying theory from which you can build all of this.

The algebra of numbers, the algebra of matrices, the algebra of derivatives, the algebra of dirichlet multiplication, etc. And proving 1+1=2 is just a way to signal: Hey, I made it. My abstract theory of logical magic can prove laws from higher level theories, so use my theory and make me famous now please.

Unfortunately they failed at the getting famous part because ZFC is 10/10

>>8822087
>nobody has read that meme book
This.
Maybe Gödel has read some of it.

>Both Whitehead and I were disappointed that Principia Mathematica was only viewed from a philosophical standpoint. People were interested in what was said about the contradictions and in the question whether ordinary mathematics had been validly deduced from purely logical premisses, but they were not interested in the mathematical techniques developed in the course of the work. ... Even those who were working on exactly the same subjects did not think it worth while to find out what Principia Mathematica had to say on them. I will give two illustrations: Mathematische Annalen published about ten years after the publication of Principia a long article giving some of the results which (unknown to the author) we had worked out in Part IV of our book. This article fell into certain inaccuracies which we had avoided, but contained nothing valid which we had not already published. The author was obviously totally unaware that he had been anticipated. The second example occurred when I was a colleague of Reichenbach at the University of California. He told me that he had invented an extension of mathematical induction which he called 'transfinite induction'. I told him that this subject was fully treated in the third volume of the Principia. When I saw him a week later, he told me that he had verified this. (1959, 86)

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/principia-mathematica/