You can say that all you want, but until you can show it with valid mathmatical reasoning than it's nothing more than words without substance.yeah like boys are better..
You can say that all you want, but until you can show it with valid mathmatical reasoning than it's nothing more than words without substance.yeah like boys are better..
Yeah, that one's good but I prefer a more complicated one...like this one:
(I can even work it out with First Year Calculus ^_^)
Is not. But truely we do not know if 1+1 =s 2! its all a theroryOriginally Posted by J.D
your notation is horrible.
Your sig is too hilarious and witty, thus i have removed it to protect the minds of all forum goers
-The allways inspiring leeza
The proof starts from the Peano Postulates, which define the natural
numbers N. N is the smallest set satisfying these postulates:
P1. 1 is in N.
P2. If x is in N, then its "successor" x' is in N.
P3. There is no x such that x' = 1.
P4. If x isn't 1, then there is a y in N such that y' = x.
P5. If S is a subset of N, 1 is in S, and the implication
(x in S => x' in S) holds, then S = N.
Then you have to define addition recursively:
Def: Let a and b be in N. If b = 1, then define a + b = a'
(using P1 and P2). If b isn't 1, then let c' = b, with c in N
(using P4), and define a + b = (a + c)'.
Then you have to define 2:
Def: 2 = 1'
2 is in N by P1, P2, and the definition of 2.
Theorem: 1 + 1 = 2
Proof: Use the first part of the definition of + with a = b = 1.
Then 1 + 1 = 1' = 2 Q.E.D.
Note: There is an alternate formulation of the Peano Postulates which
replaces 1 with 0 in P1, P3, P4, and P5. Then you have to change the
definition of addition to this:
Def: Let a and b be in N. If b = 0, then define a + b = a.
If b isn't 0, then let c' = b, with c in N, and define
a + b = (a + c)'.
You also have to define 1 = 0', and 2 = 1'. Then the proof of the
Theorem above is a little different:
Proof: Use the second part of the definition of + first:
1 + 1 = (1 + 0)'
Now use the first part of the definition of + on the sum in
parentheses: 1 + 1 = (1)' = 1' = 2 Q.E.D.
my brain hurts:(:(:(
baka^ni
I Bet Yer Not Done With High School Yet
When I Finished High School I Didnt Felt Like Askin More Stuff To Math
It Scares Me
do i sound like it? darn! its still a theory.
I do!
I'm a girl and I'm evil .....at certain times of the day
4444444444 4 4 444 44 4
[q="White Raven"]
Yeah, that one's good but I prefer a more complicated one...like this one:
(I can even work it out with First Year Calculus ^_^)[/q]
I found one possible error. f(t) was never defined in that example, and therefore, the limit at t=inf. may or may not be infinity...It could be zero for all we know, throwing it off.
Grab the opportunities life hands you, that's my motto!
lyrics from a song:
....and in this world it's not all our money that's evil...it's the ones who choose it over life...
*You know it's over, growing colder, I need something, leads me next to nothing...*
*All we ever wanted, I need something, leads me next to nothing...*
I know a girl who is very evil, she locked a little kid (with a fear of spiders and tight spaces) in a cupboard because he wouldn't eat the meal she cooked him.
Pfffft. Girls arnt evil.
Nuff said.
Chaos
Wake up peoples...the <b>LOVE</b> of money is the root of all evil. Therefore that proof is invalid.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...:10&version=31
Oh well if it's in the Bible then it MUST be true :rolleyes2 I mean come on,Wake up peoples...the <b>LOVE</b> of money is the root of all evil. Therefore that proof is invalid.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...:10&version=31
it's not like it was dictated by God himself or anything.
Oh...
Damnit.
.opt
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
