(September 4, 2012 at 6:41 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote:(September 4, 2012 at 6:36 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Oh look the English teacher is suddenly curious as to the conundrum of assumptions!
What I'm saying is that the chestnut case is not scientific proof or evidence of the truth of the mathematical proposition 1+1=2.
There is no scientific evidence for 1+1=2. Science has to just assume fundamental axioms of mathematics are true.
The statement that I am an English teacher is an admission that you are in need of one. Its good to see you are coming to terms with your self-evident limitations.
You're saying the two chestnuts would not be physical proof that putting one chestnut with one chestnut will inevitably lead to a very specific and easily predictable amount of chestnuts?
Again, be very clear about this.
Whoa, wait a second, Hoodie McGee!
Putting chestnuts together to get specific and easily predictable amounts of chestnuts is not the same as putting 1+1=2.
Now you're confusing one concept with another. Probably because you don't want to admit that science can't prove mathematical truths. Think about it McGee- why would we need axioms in math if we had science? Because science can't prove math, that's why.
Stick to the concept we're talking about. Don't go off into another direction just because you don't like your ass being handed to ya!
