kc_kennylau
  • kc_kennylau
[Serious mode] How to prove that 1≠2? We have equality is transitive, we have 1's successor is 2, we have... No theorem ever said that a successor cannot be equal to the number itself No theorem ever said that two numbers with different looks cannot be equal 1.000... is equal to 0.999... for example A number can have many ways of presenting... ASSUMPTIONS: 2:=S(S(0)), 1:=S(0), where S(x) denotes the successor of x, where x is a natural number.
Mathematics
  • Stacey Warren - Expert brainly.com
Hey! We 've verified this expert answer for you, click below to unlock the details :)
SOLVED
At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
jamiebookeater
  • jamiebookeater
I got my questions answered at brainly.com in under 10 minutes. Go to brainly.com now for free help!
dan815
  • dan815
|dw:1388848268722:dw|
dan815
  • dan815
now help me with my question
kc_kennylau
  • kc_kennylau
then how do you know that 0≠1?

Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.

More answers

dan815
  • dan815
definition
kc_kennylau
  • kc_kennylau
Is there a very axiom or something
dan815
  • dan815
yeah
kc_kennylau
  • kc_kennylau
Which
dan815
  • dan815
0 means u have 0 of 1 and 1 means you have 1 of 1
kc_kennylau
  • kc_kennylau
...
kc_kennylau
  • kc_kennylau
I want the name of the axiom/definition/theorem
dan815
  • dan815
ask uhhh
dan815
  • dan815
ikram
kc_kennylau
  • kc_kennylau
@ikram002p @ganeshie8 @primeralph
ikram002p
  • ikram002p
there is axioms that say for any integer n belong to z s.t z={0,1,2,...,n ,...} then n+1>n or 0>1 its depand on the groupe that u wanna make binary operation on :) u cud see Abstract Algebra books ull got it easilly
primeralph
  • primeralph
It all depends on assignment. If I decided to assign two units to 1, then 1=2. In Math, two units has already been assigned to the figure 2 and is fixed in most cases.
kc_kennylau
  • kc_kennylau
How do you know that if a>b a can't be equal to b? @ikram002p
kc_kennylau
  • kc_kennylau
@primeralph but do you have an axiom/definition/theorem that says 1≠2?
kc_kennylau
  • kc_kennylau
@ikram002p and which axiom is that?
primeralph
  • primeralph
You're dealing with notation and graphics here; this is not math.
kc_kennylau
  • kc_kennylau
all theorems are built on axioms all axioms are built on definitions all definitions are built on notation
kc_kennylau
  • kc_kennylau
@primeralph notations are the basis of Maths.
primeralph
  • primeralph
No. Notations are how we make things more appealing to understand.
primeralph
  • primeralph
For example, math had advanced greatly even before 0 was included in numbers. They simply used nothingness to represent 0.
ikram002p
  • ikram002p
assume u have a,b belongs to z then u have another axiom sys that say 0 belongs to Z a-a=0 u know this axiom right ? so if a>b then a=b+c s,t c belong to z if a=b then a-b=0 its the thms, axioms on the binary operation of the "groups" idk if it has a unigue name , if u wanna ill check my old Abstract algebra book.
kc_kennylau
  • kc_kennylau
a-b=0 then what?
anonymous
  • anonymous
@kc_kennylau Are you talking about the real number system?
ikram002p
  • ikram002p
then b must equal a , cuz there is unique num that u cud add to a to give 0 ( but its depand on the groupe u have , n the operation that u r givven)
kc_kennylau
  • kc_kennylau
@RolyPoly yes
kc_kennylau
  • kc_kennylau
@ikram002p how to prove that the axiom's converse also holds?
anonymous
  • anonymous
Addition axioms: (d) For every x in R there exists an element y in R, called the negative of x such that x+y=0
anonymous
  • anonymous
*axiom
ikram002p
  • ikram002p
ohk , i checkd the book the definition said Group let G be a set together with a binary operation (usually called multiplication ) that assigns to each orderd pair (a,b) of elements of G an element in G denoted by ab.......} to the rest of it then u have a groupe of thms called Elementary properties of groups thm 1: uniqueness of the identity thm 2: cancellation thm 3: uniqueness of inverse thm 4 : socks-shoes property .....
kc_kennylau
  • kc_kennylau
@RolyPoly source?
ikram002p
  • ikram002p
" how to prove that the axiom's converse also holds" u mean uniqueness of inverse ??
kc_kennylau
  • kc_kennylau
@ikram002p yes
ikram002p
  • ikram002p
ohk to prove it on the addition operation for example u should know that thm 1: uniqueness of the identity (e=0) thm 2: cancellation ( if ab=cb then a=c) then prove uniqueness of inverse assume u have a,b,c belonge to z use contradiction let a+b=0 a+c=0 then conclude that b=c
ikram002p
  • ikram002p
sry typo "thm 2: cancellation ( if ab=cb then a=c)" its like this thm 2: cancellation ( if a+b=c+b then a=c)
kc_kennylau
  • kc_kennylau
@ikram002p wow i appreciate your effort very much, I think that's all?
amoodarya
  • amoodarya
s=1-1+1-1+1-1+1-1+... suppose (wrong) s converge now let write 1+s as 1+s=1+{1+(1-1)+(1-1)+(1-1)+...}=1+{1+0+0+0...}=2 let write s+1 as 1+s=1 +{(1-1)+(1-1)+(1-1)+...}=1+{0}=1 now we have 1+s=1 and 1+s=2 so 1=2 but assumption was wrong from the first so by contradiction 1≠2
ikram002p
  • ikram002p
@kc_kennylau idk if thats all lolz , its depand on u if u got it or not :P
kc_kennylau
  • kc_kennylau
@amoodarya wow that's a cool approach i loved this approach, but I don't know if it'd be formal enough xPP
ikram002p
  • ikram002p
wats ur course name ?
kc_kennylau
  • kc_kennylau
@ikram002p I think I very much got it: \[\begin{array}{lrl} \mbox{Lemma 1:}&\forall a\in\mathbb Z:&a-a=0\\ \mbox{Lemma 2:}&\forall a\in\mathbb Z,\forall b\ne a:&a-b\ne 0\\ \mbox{Lemma 3:}&\forall a,b\in\mathbb Z:&a>b\Rightarrow a\ne b\\ \mbox{Lemma 4:}&\forall n\in\mathbb Z:&s(n)\ne n\\ \mbox{THEOREM:}&&2\ne 1 \end{array}\]Is this correct?
kc_kennylau
  • kc_kennylau
@ikram002p There is no course, I learn everything by myself+my dad.
kc_kennylau
  • kc_kennylau
But I have gone beyond what my dad can teach me, so I basically learn everything by myself (ain't erasing all the efforts of my dad)
ikram002p
  • ikram002p
wat u got is true , but there is no need to write them as lemmas , and wat u ment wid lemma 4 ? for the last one no its not THEOREM cuz u cud prove it using a basic groupe of thms :) but u r such a smart person good for u , hope u the best .
kc_kennylau
  • kc_kennylau
so what I wrote is enough?
kc_kennylau
  • kc_kennylau
I really want to prove by every single definitions+axioms.
ikram002p
  • ikram002p
ohk let me wrote the prove for u ok ? u wanna prove that 1 dnt equal 2 right ?
kc_kennylau
  • kc_kennylau
yes, thank you so much :D
kc_kennylau
  • kc_kennylau
Lemma 1 is an axiom, Lemma 2 you have proven it before, Lemma 3 corollary from Lemma 2, Lemma 4 you still not stated the source Theorem corollary from Lemma 4
kc_kennylau
  • kc_kennylau
And thank you for your blessing :D
ikram002p
  • ikram002p
ok using this axioms sys that i wrote before *********************************** ohk , i checkd the book the definition said Group let G be a set together with a binary operation (usually called multiplication ) that assigns to each orderd pair (a,b) of elements of G an element in G denoted by ab.......} to the rest of it then u have a groupe of thms called Elementary properties of groups thm 1: uniqueness of the identity thm 2: cancellation thm 3: uniqueness of inverse thm 4 : socks-shoes property *********************************
ikram002p
  • ikram002p
let me tell u this lemma , thm , proposition all of them are the same , the oly difference btw is the priority of using , so u dnt simply write lemma abt somthin unless its new sup u creat , or book or somthing ok ??
kc_kennylau
  • kc_kennylau
oh i see, but I am mainly proving 1≠2, so all others I named them as lemmas
terenzreignz
  • terenzreignz
Just a little comment: Assuming 1 = 0 implies that your field only has one element, since 0 is defined as the additive identity and 1, the multiplicative identity.
kc_kennylau
  • kc_kennylau
@terenzreignz but what's the problem with just having one element in my very field? :)
terenzreignz
  • terenzreignz
There isn't a problem. But who wants to work with such a trivial field?
kc_kennylau
  • kc_kennylau
meeeeeeee :pp
terenzreignz
  • terenzreignz
Well, it all boils down to how useful it is to deal with the (the name for it is: ) Trivial Subgroup of the Group of real numbers....
kc_kennylau
  • kc_kennylau
@terenzreignz that's exactly the problem, since there isn't in fact any theorem that states 1≠2.
kc_kennylau
  • kc_kennylau
or of which we can create this corollary.
terenzreignz
  • terenzreignz
@kc_kennylau no need to tag me every time, it's *TJ* :P Anyway... clear this up by defining what exactly is 2.
ikram002p
  • ikram002p
lets us prove that 1 dnt = 2 from def :: let Z be our group on binary operation of addition so u already know that(all of them r thms ) 1_0 is the identity 2- for a,b,c belongs to Z if a+b=a+c then b=c 3_for every a there exist unique a^-1 such that a+a^-1 =0 . the proof , by contradiction assume 1=2 1=2 1+0=1+1 (use thm 2) 0=1 (which is contradictiom to thm 1that 0 is unique) done ! got it ?
kc_kennylau
  • kc_kennylau
2, according to peano's axioms, is the successor of 1. @terenzreignz
kc_kennylau
  • kc_kennylau
@ikram002p wow this proof is so short, I love it very much :DDDDD Now the time has come to prove the uniqueness of the additive identity.
terenzreignz
  • terenzreignz
Which axiom Lau?
kc_kennylau
  • kc_kennylau
tj sorry i meant definition, and i realized that 2 is actually defined to be S(S(0)). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms#Set-theoretic_models
ikram002p
  • ikram002p
u need to know the Group first on binary and prove it in general . use contradiction assume u have two identity lets take e1,e1 so for a belonge to G a+e1=a a+e2=a a+e1=a+e2( use thm 2) e1=e2 which is contradiction done!
kc_kennylau
  • kc_kennylau
now prove theorem 2, thank you.
terenzreignz
  • terenzreignz
Well actually, that article simply states that 2 CAN be defined as S(S(0)). Depending on your definition of 2, 1=2 may yet be true.
kc_kennylau
  • kc_kennylau
how?
terenzreignz
  • terenzreignz
Simply define 2 to be equal to 1. That already implying that your group/field is a trivial one.
kc_kennylau
  • kc_kennylau
ok, I now define 2 to be S(S(0)) and 1 to be S(0). (I'll edit the question to include this piece of detail)
kc_kennylau
  • kc_kennylau
included.
terenzreignz
  • terenzreignz
Then 1 is indeed not equal to 2.
kc_kennylau
  • kc_kennylau
how?
terenzreignz
  • terenzreignz
Suppose 1 = 2 S(0) = S(S(0)), by #6, S(0) is a natural number. by #1, 0 is a natural number by #8, 0 = S(0), contradicts #7
kc_kennylau
  • kc_kennylau
Then you have to prove S(a)=S(b)⇒a=b
terenzreignz
  • terenzreignz
That's #8
kc_kennylau
  • kc_kennylau
Ouah j'adore cette preuve :D
kc_kennylau
  • kc_kennylau
C'est simple est courte :D
terenzreignz
  • terenzreignz
^_^
kc_kennylau
  • kc_kennylau
Je le recris comme sa: Suppose que 1=2. 1=2 S(0)=S(S(0)) (par definition) 0=S(0) (par #8) Donc contradiction
terenzreignz
  • terenzreignz
You skipped a bit... maths teachers can be very nitpicky.
kc_kennylau
  • kc_kennylau
Guess who my Maths teacher is :)
kc_kennylau
  • kc_kennylau
btw, what did I skip?
terenzreignz
  • terenzreignz
Leonhard Euler?
kc_kennylau
  • kc_kennylau
C'est moi meme :D
terenzreignz
  • terenzreignz
Mostly what the contradiction is, exactly.
kc_kennylau
  • kc_kennylau
Je le recris encore comme sa: Suppose que 1=2. 1=2 S(0)=S(S(0)) (par definition) 0=S(0) (par #8) Donc contradiction (par #7)
terenzreignz
  • terenzreignz
Good enough, I guess.
kc_kennylau
  • kc_kennylau
Gracias :D
anonymous
  • anonymous
observational analysis |dw:1388853436507:dw| :
kc_kennylau
  • kc_kennylau
\(-_-")/
anonymous
  • anonymous
If you are not sure how to tell that 1 is not = to 2, I would love for you to come and work for me. I'll give you $30 per hour...
kc_kennylau
  • kc_kennylau
|-_-"|
anonymous
  • anonymous
:) sorry I'm not in serious mode yet lol
kc_kennylau
  • kc_kennylau
lolz xD
ikram002p
  • ikram002p
will but u need to know it depand on the operation to prove that 1 dnt equal 2 let me give u example that 1= 2 1=0mod 1 2=0 mod 1 1=2 (on mod 1 operation )
kc_kennylau
  • kc_kennylau
that should be an equivalent sign.
ikram002p
  • ikram002p
:) note wat i wrote :o im talking abt the prove in "operation , groups"
kc_kennylau
  • kc_kennylau
oh i see.

Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.