Is there a way to refute '1+1 = 2'?

[Conway]

Lol I agree with your post Greta. It however is possible to deal with the "varying quantities of things" by labeling both value, and space and representing both bits of information in the number itself. I have made a post entitled relative mathematics if you would care.

[Sy Borg]

Thanks Conway. I had to stop a couple of paras into Chapter 2 due to a brain cell shortage. Will try again after I recoup.

In essence this appears to be an attempted equivalent refinement of current math as GR's refinement of Newtonian physics. The clockwork model of the present meets the interactive evolution of long time scales. I like it so far. My old mate Leo might have issues with the spatial component, but sometimes in these things we can use different terms to describe similar visualisations and concepts.

I never thought of algebra as a representation of space - a potential for a value to be in.

[Shado]

Yes, there is, but only within the confines of other mathematical constructs, such as Boolean Algebra. Otherwise, if I have one then get another, I have more than one.

[The Beast]

Once again. Every time is different. 1 +1 = 2 is a proposition in time. I can say that the proposition is whether two objects can be added together. However, if they exist they can be counted. As such one ant and one car can be counted as two objects but they cannot be added together. There are objects that can be added together like apples. One big apple plus one small apple equals two apples. Logical, we need the standard apple to adjust the sum. The sum of one big apple plus one small apple might be 1.5 standard apples. There are things that get added better than others. We add money to get other things. One peso the same as another peso. I’ve been trying to add myself. One plus another equal two of me. I say it but I feel the same. We try to count human beings all the time, and there are standards for everything. I have a picture right here… The compatibility of Nature create new forms. Some survived to be counted. The office of accepted standards have put forth a new standard made of infinite dimensions. Good luck adding one plus one. Not matter what they say, Nature has the final list… that keeps changing with the momentum. Can two objects not in QM occupy the same space? What if they have been added together? 10 objects equals one car with GPS.

[Shado]

Try this. One lump of clay combined with one lump of clay is just one lump of clay.

PhilX

Two questions arise: 1.) Was it a larger lump of clay? 2.) Why add another without a purpose in mind?

[Shado]

1+1=3 in binary language

So refutation occurs through varying context, convention, and logic.

In binary, there are only two possible answers, 0 or 1. Boolean suggests that 1+1=1, since any output of 1 can't be zero. This applies equally to all AND and OR functions.

I also suspect this was a trap...

[Gulnara]

1 + 1 = 2 is a statement of relativity. Maths is all about relativity - the comparison between entities.

Then it means that math alreday presented us with relativity, before Einstein, only it did it withot saying it's relativity.

-- Updated Mon Jun 01, 2015 12:55 pm to add the following --

The Beast, you were trying to add youself. I think, in this light, that person's life is nothing but addition of self to self, which makes person grow, change and age. It is an addition of certain frequency, one that satisfies laws of continuation of life on a way to achieving finity.

-- Updated Mon Jun 01, 2015 12:58 pm to add the following --

The Beast, you were trying to add youself. I think, in this light, that person's life is nothing but addition of self to self, which makes person grow, change and age. It is an addition of certain frequency, one that satisfies laws of continuation of life on a way to achieving finity. ( life is when death or nonexistence lost it's way).

[Conway]

I would think math is and was in a state of completeness. Therefore it "presented" us with relativity, zero, calculus, and so, well before we as humans became aware of it. This is certainly true of physics. I think it arrogant that some mathematicians claim, that math is created not discovered.

[Sy Borg]

I guess so, Gulnara. Relativity has always stared us in the face via math. What is math but comparisons between things - more or less, bigger or smaller, faster of slower, hotter or cooler etc.

I agree, Conway. The morphing informational relationships between observed phenomena have always been present, whether they're observed by primates or not. What we have done is devise particular information-handling systems suitable to our collective capacities and circumstances.

Is it just arrogance that leads people to believe that math is a human invention? It's said that we invented math just as we invented saxophones, toasters, tennis etc, which is true but superficial because what we've done with math, or equivalent, would be achieved by any intelligent beings in the universe.

It's also said that we can't describe everything mathematically. Maybe. I've heard that there are physical limitations to our capacity to measure the universe and that the amount of equipment needed to measure all activity in the universe would be so great that it would collapse under its own weight and form a black hole:)

[Misty]

Let me see if this clarifies the situation.

Let's say you have one object on a table. It's doesn't matter what the object is. Then you find another object (again it doesn't matter what) and place it on the table. Now there are two objects on the table. You can repeat this process as often as you want, but not once will you be able to place one object and then another object and end up with three objects.

Every time you add one to one, you will always get two.

Why is it important that 1+1=2? Because mathematics is one of the principal tools by which we observe and quantify the physical universe. Math works.

What if you placed two objects on a table and for no apparent reason one broke into two parts, would there be two objects or three?

I found It odd no one picked up on my post #17 about DNA.

[The Beast]

The language of Math, just like any other language, is an invention of man. The phenomenology it describes is discovered and it is presented as a proposition of quantification. This will be the same as essence before substance. Best to say: the substance describes the process of will of the essence. Substance or reality is the language of essence. Our language is the understanding of the mind. If essence becomes substance can substance become essence? Therefore. Can essence be real and the language of substance? So far we have Math among other philosophies to describe reality and the essence we desire… and perhaps a little more. The mind has gone far beyond what the subjective apparatus has described for it. For the subjective mind an object is what it can substantiate with the senses. The mind gives names to objects. So, two objects could become one object plus another object broken in two. Can the broken object be described as two named objects? Just as a branch is broken in two they are named branches as well. The Math is used to explain reality: 1+1 =2 original reality 1 + 1 (broken object) = 2 or 1+1+1=3 (reality after change). How did it change? Why? How? When? Enter Philosophy. Tomorrow there will be a doubt that three objects were two…Enter DNA test.

[Spiral Out]

Some claim that '1+1=2' is true."

Why is a straight line and another straight line the same as a curvy line?

[Conway]

It is possible to utilize mathematics without the use of language. I think you can alike math and language, but they are not the same thing. Likewise substance and reality. If then, Beast by your own words, language is an invention of man, as mathematics is a language, is therefore an invention of man, then reality and substance, which you refer to as a language is also invented by man. This I know is not true, maybe I misinterpreted you. If then it is best to say that reality is the language of the will of essence, then without essence there is no reality. So then essence before substance.

I do not think 1 thing broke in 2 is 2 of that thing. It is 2 of something new. That thing being .5 of the original thing. So while value remains the same, in any "thing" that is broken, that things space does not. Again the necessity for labeling of space and value in any symbolic number.

[Percarus]

1+1 = 11?

[Sy Borg]

1+1 = 11?

The pictorial approach:

@ + @ = @@

¥ + ¥ + ¥ = ¥¥¥

etc.