2 ms·
> isn’t dependent on agreement It is by definition. If you disagree, go write a mathematical proof that 1 = 1. There are many in the world who would love to se
by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
> isn’t dependent on agreement
It is by definition. If you disagree, go write a mathematical proof that 1 = 1. There are many in the world who would love to see it.
- Retric 4y agoHardly, there are sets of axioms where 1 = 1 which already show this in exquisite detail.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y agoI'm not sure what you mean by this, particularly this phrasing: "sets of axioms where 1 = 1". 1 = 1 is an axiom, not something that's proven by any set of axioms. But I'm willing to believe I'm simply naive here. You say there is some set of axioms which prove that 1 = 1. Are those axioms not agreements? Since you seem to be familiar, what are those axioms?
- Retric 4y agoWhat you are missing is 1 = 1 isn’t inherently true on it’s own. There are sets of axioms where 1 = 1 is false, different sets where it’s undefined, and finally sets of axioms where 1 = 1 is true. However, for a given set of axioms there is no choice and nothing to agree upon. That’s what makes math universally true.