2, 2, 4, +, and = are things that we define. Given those definitions, 2 + 2 = 4. Problem solved. Don’t want to define them that way? Then you’re talking about something else.
Stuff is consistent, we never have a true contradiction, never have A AND NOT A? incredible!
That’s the sense in which I’d say math is “real”… the reality is tied to the fact that stuff sure seems to actually be consistent. I can’t really conceive of what it would mean for that not to be so, but still, it seems like there’s something I’m confused about here.
Yeah, I’m beginning to think this discussion could use a domain expert, not to tell us the answer but to clarify the issues. Anyone know someone who works in Philosophy of Math?
I would say
4 = 3 + 1 by definition
3 = 2 + 1 by definition
2 = 1 + 1 by definition
4 = (2+1) + 1 by substitution
4 = 2 + (1 + 1) by association
4 = 2 + 2 by substitution
2, 2, 4, +, and = are things that we define. Given those definitions, 2 + 2 = 4. Problem solved. Don’t want to define them that way? Then you’re talking about something else.
substitution, association, etc work? Amazing!
Stuff is consistent, we never have a true contradiction, never have A AND NOT A? incredible!
That’s the sense in which I’d say math is “real”… the reality is tied to the fact that stuff sure seems to actually be consistent. I can’t really conceive of what it would mean for that not to be so, but still, it seems like there’s something I’m confused about here.
Yeah, I’m beginning to think this discussion could use a domain expert, not to tell us the answer but to clarify the issues. Anyone know someone who works in Philosophy of Math?