Results 1 to 10 of 10

Math Help - How do you prove these really basic statements?

  1. #1
    Member
    Joined
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    177
    Thanks
    1

    How do you prove these really basic statements?

    Hi. Out of curiousity, I was wondering how one goes about proving simple statements such as 1+1=2. I don't know a lot about the set theoretic formulation of natural numbers; only, that 0=, eccetera. Could you please tell me how addition is defined using this formulation of N?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    Super Member
    Joined
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    593
    Thanks
    4
    Are you asking how one proves that "addition" works, or that the integer 2 can be represented by 1+1?

    I would check out this entry on Addition; it is one of those "basic" ideas you just accept I suppose: when we "add" something we are combining one set of objects with another (I also like the "length" argument).

    If your intent is to prove that 2 is equal to 1+1, you can just note that 2 is an even number, and all even numbers can be represented as 2k, where k is some integer. In this case your integer is 1 (1+1 => 2(1)).

    Hopefully that answers, a little bit, your question - assuming I understood the question.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    Member
    Joined
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    177
    Thanks
    1
    No, that dosen't work because you've pretty much assumed what you wanted to prove. IE 1+1=2(1), which is what you wanted to show in the first place. My question is about how you prove these simple statements, using set theory. Your solution requires a definition of addition, and a definition of multiplication.

    In set theory, the natural numbers are constructed thusly:

    0= ,1={0) , 2={0, 1} ,... I don't know how addition is defined using this construction.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #4
    MHF Contributor Drexel28's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2009
    From
    Berkeley, California
    Posts
    4,563
    Thanks
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris11 View Post
    No, that dosen't work because you've pretty much assumed what you wanted to prove. IE 1+1=2(1), which is what you wanted to show in the first place. My question is about how you prove these simple statements, using set theory. Your solution requires a definition of addition, and a definition of multiplication.

    In set theory, the natural numbers are constructed thusly:

    0= ,1={0) , 2={0, 1} ,... I don't know how addition is defined using this construction.
    How intense are you trying to get into this? Look up Principia Mathematica
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  5. #5
    MHF Contributor undefined's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2010
    From
    Chicago
    Posts
    2,340
    Awards
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris11 View Post
    No, that dosen't work because you've pretty much assumed what you wanted to prove. IE 1+1=2(1), which is what you wanted to show in the first place. My question is about how you prove these simple statements, using set theory. Your solution requires a definition of addition, and a definition of multiplication.

    In set theory, the natural numbers are constructed thusly:

    0= ,1={0) , 2={0, 1} ,... I don't know how addition is defined using this construction.
    I have not reviewed such proofs, but this proposition in Principia Mathematica by Russell and Whitehead is pretty famous.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  6. #6
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    18,605
    Thanks
    1574
    Awards
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris11 View Post
    No, that dosen't work because you've pretty much assumed what you wanted to prove. IE 1+1=2(1), which is what you wanted to show in the first place. My question is about how you prove these simple statements, using set theory. Your solution requires a definition of addition, and a definition of multiplication.
    In set theory, the natural numbers are constructed thusly:
    0= ,1={0) , 2={0, 1} ,... I don't know how addition is defined using this construction.
    Here is a suggestion of a book.
    An Outline of Set Theory by James M Henle.
    It is written for a Moore style class, thus making it ideal for self-study.
    He does a beautiful job of answering your questions.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  7. #7
    Member
    Joined
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    177
    Thanks
    1
    Thanks Plato. I'll see if it's available at my school's library.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    466
    Thanks
    4
    For this question, I don't think it is very helpful to refer to Principia Mathematica, whose (arguably, over) elaborate system (even unclear in certain respects) has been supplanted in common mathematical use by more streamlined first order systems such as Z set theory.

    The question of proving "1+1=2" requires answering "Prove in what sense?" In a formal sense? Then in what particular system? First order Peano Arithmetic (PA)? Z set theory?

    As for PA, '+' is not defined, but rather is primitive with axioms ('S' is a primitive 1-place function symbol, intuitively understood as 'successor of'):

    n + 0 = n
    n + S(k) = S(n + k)

    From the axioms (and the definitions of '1' and '2'), a proof is trivial :

    1 =df S(0)
    2 =df S(1)

    1+1 = S(0) + S(0)
    = S(S(0) + 0)
    = S(S(0))
    = 2

    As for Z set theory, usually the addition function is proven as a set by a definition by recursion theorem, which provides as theorems the set theoretic versions of the PA axioms, along with 'S' defined by:

    S(n) = n union {n}

    and in which case we get a proof essentially as in PA.

    0 =df the empty set
    1 =df S(0) = 0 union {0} = {0}
    2 =df S(1) = 1 union {1} = {0 1}

    So (looking at the sets themselves):

    1+1 = {0} + {0}
    = S({0} + 0)
    = S({0})
    = {0} union {{0}}
    = {0 1}
    = 2

    P.S. I recommend for set theory texts:

    'Elements Of Set Theory' - Enderton
    'Axiomatic Set Theory' - Suppes

    Those are both authoritative, in common use (which makes them suitable if one wishes to communicate readily with other people about the subject), well written, systematic, and comprehensive per a beginning level.

    In combination (while making a few easy tweaks to the Suppes text), they're an excellent introduction to the subject.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  9. #9
    Member
    Joined
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    177
    Thanks
    1
    Thanks for your reply MoeBlee. I'll see if my school has those books in its library. Also, if you could answer this quesiton: do you know if set theory is still an active research area?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    466
    Thanks
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris11 View Post
    do you know if set theory is still an active research area?
    Indeed, it is active. Some of the old veterans are still at work along with new researchers in the subject. In fact, about a couple of years back was published is a tome 'Handbook Of Set Theory' that discusses some of the relatively recent results in the subject.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. Prove that the following statements are equivalent
    Posted in the Differential Geometry Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: November 25th 2011, 05:15 AM
  2. Just making sure these statements are correct (Basic Topology)
    Posted in the Differential Geometry Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: September 29th 2011, 08:19 PM
  3. Basic Conditional Statements:
    Posted in the Geometry Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: September 21st 2011, 03:01 PM
  4. Prove these statements are equivalent
    Posted in the Discrete Math Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: March 15th 2010, 03:46 PM
  5. How do you prove these statements?
    Posted in the Calculus Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: October 3rd 2009, 12:47 PM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum