When attempting to formulate a 'proof of mathematics' you look to the simplest aspects of it, and try to prove those. The simplest aspects of mathematics would be numbers and basic functions, but the basic functions can be defined after we define addition. Of numbers, imaginary, complex, irrational, fractional, and large numbers can all be defined by these basic functions, and other numbers, specifically starting with 1 and 0.
So we have addition, 1, and 0 to prove. It might even be possible to hold out on 0.
Does this make sense? In an attempt to prove mathematics, we should start by trying to prove addition and '1', and building on that?
2007-12-01
16:51:57
·
2 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous