# data[].attributes.headline
OBJECTS given to you are in the other padlet

# data[].attributes.subject
OBJECTS given to you are in the other padlet

# data[].attributes.body
Some examples we did in class below

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Rise of the Machines – Why Automation is Different this Time

# data[].attributes.body
Siddhant sir

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It only takes a minute to sign up.

Sign up to join this community

Asked

$\begingroup$

This question already has answers here:

Closed 6 years ago.

This question was featured on Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal and I haven't been able to find a proof. Can anyone help?

Asaf Karagila ♦

345k 38 38 gold badges 505 505 silver badges 867 867 bronze badges

user119137 user119137

129 1 1 silver badge 4 4 bronze badges

$\endgroup$

$\begingroup$

When proving theorems in mathematics, one starts from a set of axioms, statements that are accepted as true without argument. You might ask, "but what if an axiom isn't true?", and the answer is that we would be dealing with different mathematics. For example, Euclid included the parallel postulate as an axiom in his elements. For years mathematicians tried to prove that the parallel postulate could be derived from the other axioms. It turns out that if you don't accept the parallel postulate, you end up with different types of geometry that we now call non-euclidean. Einsteins theory of general relativity depends on these geometries.

To come up with a proof of such a seemingly simple fact as $2 + 2 = 4$, we need a set of axioms to start with, and we need precise definitions of all the terms we are using. Depending on what set of axioms you start with, proving that $2 + 2 = 4$, and that no other natural number can equal $2+2$ may be either very simple or surprisingly difficult. For example in Russell and Whitehead's Principia, it famously took over 300 pages of work before they could prove that $1+1=2$. They started with a very sparse set of axioms though.

The most common set of axioms for the natural numbers are the Peano Axioms.

They are

1. $0$ is a natural number.

2. For every natural number $x$, $x=x$.

3. For all natural numbers $x$ and $y$, if $x = y$, then $y = x$.

4. For all natural numbers $x$, $y$, and $z$, if $x = y$ and $y = z$, then $x = z$.

5. For all $a$ and $b$, if $a$ is a natural number, and $a = b$, then $b$ is a natural number.

6. For every natural number $n$, $S(n)$ is a natural number.

7. For every natural number $n$, $S(n) = 0$ is false.

8. For all natural numbers $m$ and $n$, if $S(m) = S(n)$ then $m = n$.

9. If $K$ is a set such that $0 \in K$, and for every natural number $n$, $n \in K$ implies that $S(n) \in K$, then $K$ contains all natural numbers.

Here $S$ is the successor function, it takes each natural number to its successor. This might seem like a complicated mess compared to the simplicity of natural numbers, but we need to be precise. We need to carefully construct the axioms so that no contradiction can be derived from them, and so they encapsulate what we understand to be the natural numbers. We want to be able to prove interesting statements about the natural numbers from them. Note that the axioms contain undefined terms. The axioms don't need to state what the terms mean, only what they do.

The following definitions are commonly used within this axiomatization. They are the definitions from Peano's original paper (An English translation is available in the book From Frege to Gödel), modified to start at $0$ instead of $1$.

$1$ is defined as $S(0)$, $2$ is defined as $S(1)$, $3$ is defined as $S(2)$, and $4$ is defined as $S(3)$. Addition is defined recursively as follows.

$$a + 0 = a$$ $$a + S(b) = S(a + b)$$.

Thus

$$2 + 2 = 2 + S(1) = S(2 + 1) = S(2 + S(0)) = S(S(2 + 0)) = S(S(2)) = S(3) = 4$$

proving that $2+2 = 4$.

This is the unique value of $2+2$ by axiom 4.

If $x = 2+2$ and $2+2 = 4$, then $x = 4$.

$\endgroup$

$\begingroup$

From the Peano axioms.

First recall that $2$ is really a shorthand for $S(S(0))$ and $4$ is a shorthand for $S(S(S(S(0))))$. Now we have the axioms for addition, $x+0=x$ and $x+S(y)=S(x+y)$. We calculate:

$$2+2=S(S(0))+S(S(0))=S(S(S(0))+S(0))=S(S(S(S(0))+0))=S(S(S(S(0)))=4$$

To prove uniqueness we use the axioms that $0\neq S(x)$, $x\neq0\rightarrow \exists y(x=S(y))$ and $S(x)=S(y)\rightarrow x=y$:

$$S(S(S(S(0))))=S(S(0))+S(S(0))=x\implies\exists y(x=S(y))\implies S(S(S(0))=y\implies\exists z(S(z)=y)\implies z=S(S(0))=2$$

Therefore $z=2$ and so $y=3$ and $x=4$ as wanted.

$\endgroup$

$\begingroup$

The question doesn't make sense; the definition of $2 + 2$ doesn't involve an indeterminate, so there's no "solution" to be had, just the fact that $2 + 2 = 4$.

Contrast this with $\sqrt{4}$, which could be interpreted as "a solution to $x^2 = 2$", in which case there are two solutions, $2$ and $-2$.

$\endgroup$

$\begingroup$

The cartoon is a joke which doesn't bear too much analysis. The "mathematician parent" is the cartoonist's parody of such a parent. A real mathematician would not ask for a proof that the "solution is unique" in the case of addition of two specific integers, because such a request would make little sense. If we must credit the request with some sense, then perhaps an appropriate response would be at the level of "because addition is unique, Stupid!".

$\endgroup$

$\begingroup$

$+$ is an operation, which means it is a function. The rest follow from definition of a function.

$\endgroup$

$\begingroup$

You need a mathematical proof by contradiction.

You assume 2 plus 2 is not equal 4.

2+2 <> 4

You substract 2 from the two sides of the equation.

2+2-2 <> 4-2

2 <> 2

2 is not equal to 2? CONTRADICTION. Thus, proof.

$\endgroup$

$\begingroup$

Prove it geometrically...

1. Fist define your "anchor/base" unit -> a line with a defined length is #1.

2. Next define #2... just join 2 of your #1 units... and postulate it's #2, the double of the "base"... you can measure it... then you can prove it...

3. draw 2 of your #2 units, parallel in the geometric space, like in a vector space...

4. Draw the next sequence -> Move the beginning of the the 2nd #2 to the end of the 1st #2 and voilá... you have #4

*you can prove all the relations -> #1 = 1x #1 | #2 = 2x #1 | #4 = (4x #1 or 2x #2) *if at a superior academic level you have to define and prove the operations also '+' and 'x'... at least the "neutral element" of operation 'x'... Good luck...

$\endgroup$

Mathematics Stack Exchange works best with JavaScript enabled

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Prove that $4$ is the only solution to $2+2$.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It only takes a minute to sign up. Sign up to join this community Asked $\begingroup$ This question already has answers here: Closed 6 years ago.

# data[].attributes.body
Source: ToK Guide 2022 pages 40-41

# data[].attributes.body
Source: ToK Guide 2022 pages 40-41

# data[].attributes.body
Source: ToK Guide 2022 page 6

# data[].attributes.body
Anita ma'am