Well, that’s not entirely true. If someone demanded a justification and your response was “It’s obvious” then you’ve done something wrong. But in absence of such a demand, it’s a perfectly fine justification. You have to start from somewhere.
You have to start from somewhere.
Somewhere is not “It’s obvious!” 2 + 2 = 4 is not obvious. It is a definition. (Edit) Yeah, uh, theorem.
But I see and agree with your point. I am merely arguing semantics now, which is not particularly useful.
I do stand by my original claim, however, that justification usually requires more than “It’s obvious!”
2 + 2 = 4 is not obvious. It is a definition.
Strictly speaking, it is a theorem (obvious one). 4=3+1 is a definition.
I thought “4 comes after 3” was a definition and “3+1 = 4″ was a theorem.
Well, that’s not entirely true. If someone demanded a justification and your response was “It’s obvious” then you’ve done something wrong. But in absence of such a demand, it’s a perfectly fine justification. You have to start from somewhere.
Somewhere is not “It’s obvious!” 2 + 2 = 4 is not obvious. It is a definition. (Edit) Yeah, uh, theorem.
But I see and agree with your point. I am merely arguing semantics now, which is not particularly useful.
I do stand by my original claim, however, that justification usually requires more than “It’s obvious!”
Strictly speaking, it is a theorem (obvious one). 4=3+1 is a definition.
I thought “4 comes after 3” was a definition and “3+1 = 4″ was a theorem.