2 ms·
Except that 4 is not 1+1+1+1, it's the successor of 3, which is the successor of 2 which is the successor of 1 which is the successor of 0. So you'd have to sh
by lisper 4y ago
Except that 4 is not 1+1+1+1, it's the successor of 3, which is the successor of 2 which is the successor of 1 which is the successor of 0. So you'd have to show that:
S(S(0)) + S(S(0)) = S(S(S(S(0))))
and that is non-trivial. (But it's not 26,000 steps either.)
- Natsu 4y agoI'm assuming those steps in the definitions of 2 and 4, but you're right that this is part of why it gets so tedious.
- WastingMyTime89 4y agoIt is trivial in most axiomatic systems. It’s directly linked to how + is defined and will mostly boil down to applying it. The 26000 steps proof is extremely convoluted.