The Student Room Group

Reply 1

It does make sense, but it's not a full proof (as it says at the bottom, you need to define addition). And er, I would attempt to translate it into something that makes sense if I could read it. :wink: There's a website around that explains it somewhere too.

Reply 2

Ok, thanks :biggrin:

Reply 3

The whole book looks like that. I heard that it's actually wrong though.
Slightly less pedantic proofs I've seen are that 1 is positve, root 2 exists and 1+1=2 in the real numbers constructed by factoring the ring of all Cauchy sequences in Q out by the ideal of null Cauchy sequences in Q.

Reply 4

This is just something I've heard but isn't 1+1=2 just an axiom, a necessary and fundamental truth that we base the rest of mathematics upon?

Philosophically speaking, numbers are a social construct, although their meaning is natural.

Reply 5

Adthegreat
This is just something I've heard but isn't 1+1=2 just an axiom, a necessary and fundamental truth that we base the rest of mathematics upon?

Philosophically speaking, numbers are a social construct, although their meaning is natural.

I think it's one of the Peano axioms, that the successor of every number is one plus the number itself, yes.