- Other blogs, same writer
- A thread from Catholic.com (more may be added)
- Answering Steve Rudd
- Have these dialogues taken place? Yes.
- Copyright issues on blogposts with shared copyright
- I think I wrote a mistaken word somewhere on youtube - or perhaps not
- What is Expertise? Some Things It is Not.
- It Seems Apocalypse is Explained in a Very Relevant Part
- Dialoguing Mainly with Adversaries
- Why do my Posts Right Here Not Answer YOUR Questio...
Thursday, May 9, 2019
Defining Number : Differring from Peano and Tibees
A delightful proof that 2+2=4
Tibees | 26.IV.2019
Now read my comment:
I disagree with 0 being a natural number.
Both number and geometry start with 1 single whole - a thing that any existing thing can be described as.
The numbers go by parallel entities, by adding 1 to 1, geometry goes by dividing the whole into parts.
So, here is how I would go about proving 2+2=4.
Transitivity and the rest are granted, it's where you start the five propositions that I disagree with first one.
2 = 1+1 (by definition)
+2 = +1+1 (by transitivity from first)
3 = 2+1 (by definition)
4 = 3+1 (by definition).
Proof with this in mind:
2+2 = 2+1+1
2+1+1 = 3+1
3+1 = 4
2+2 = 2+1+1 = 3+1 = 4
(by transitivity) = > 2+2=4
0 and -1 are perfectly valid "relative numbers" as they are called in France, or "numeric relations" as I would prefer to call them, precisely as "twice" or "half" are geometric relations.
+-0 is in arithmetic what *1/1 is in geometry.