So...guess I'm the new guy

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

Yes, it's exactly the same, Troll. The numbers themselves are descriptive, sure, we can play with the system divorced from any definition of set, but it's always understood at that point that we're playing with a system. Any insight that comes from playing with the system is first checked against the defined set (reality) before we propose that this insight is relevant to anything beyond the system itself.

It's so blisteringly easy to demonstrate that 1+1=2 that it's commonly used an introduction to math (and subsequent theory) for toddlers. The lesson is, apparently, lost on some.

[Reforged]

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!

The only thing I changed was putting "one" instead of "1" and "put with" instead of "add".

If I add one chestnut to a pocket already containing one chestnut what is the physical result and could you give it a numerical value?
Are you having some trouble doing this? Would you like help?

[discordianpope]

Vinny is right about the chestnuts. You have to already have a grasp of mathematics in order to do mathematical operations, even with physical objects. It doesn't mean that mathematics as a whole can't be confirmed by science mind.

[Reforged]

Vinny is right about the chestnuts. You have to already have a grasp of mathematics in order to do mathematical operations, even with physical objects. It doesn't mean that mathematics as a whole can't be confirmed by science mind.

The fact remains we describe two chestnuts as being two chestnuts. The addition of one to another requires us to describe it as such.
Mathematics simply acknowledges this physically evident process using symbols as opposed to descriptive words.
Does it not?

---

I don't mean to rush you Vince but it really wasn't that much of a difficult question. I know there were some long words thrown in there like "physical" or "numerical" that probably perplexed you because I didn't provide a definition but still... I can't help but feel you should of come to a conclusion by now.
Just sayin'.

[Cyberman]

We as humans define what numerals are and how they relate to objects and their value. Take any human civilisation you like from just about any period in our history, since the invention of number systems. Place any number of, say, pebbles on the ground before a local and s/he will know instantly that there are a specific number of them. They may not use one, two, three and so on; they may say wa', cha', wej (as the Klingons would if they were real) but the person would know how many items are represented. Now add another number to the pile and your friendly local will understand that you have created a new and larger number. If you equate each pebble with some other item in their world, let's say cows, you now have a tally system for keeping track of the number of animals you have. This stuff is so basic most people seem to grasp it around about the same time as they learn to talk.

[Reforged]

Looks like hes going to pull an all-nighter over this one boys. Tell you what I'll get some sleep and answer whatever thought provoking response you've come up with in the morning. Might even take me a whole thirty seconds to answer depending on how much work you've put into it.
I mean some people would say that anyone who puts "McGee" on the end of an insult is probably too inbred and chavish to come up with anything of note and while it is true that your hereditary early baldness, exaggerated forehead and apparent lack of any notable intellect doesn't exactly discount this notion I feel in the interest of fairness I must explore this hypothesis first hand before confirming that you are one of the lost Fritzle children and would be best placed as an extra in the next
sub-standard remake of "The Hills Have Eyes". Preferably a walk in role with no lines so as not to destroy what little potential charm the film might have.
Night all.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

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!

The only thing I changed was putting "one" instead of "1" and "put with" instead of "add".

If I add one chestnut to a pocket already containing one chestnut what is the physical result and could you give it a numerical value?
Are you having some trouble doing this? Would you like help?

You have to have a prior concept of mathematics in order to give it any mathematical value.

Without knowing, or assuming 1+1=2, you could not make such a claim.

[The Grand Nudger]

The concepts of math are only important when attempting to communicate the observations of the chestnuts in your hands. They vary from place to place, time to time (as has been mentioned).

No one is leveraging any assumptions here Vinny, I can wait until you have some chestnuts. Until then I'll withhold judgement. Until you, Vinny, have some chestnuts to test this theory, 1+1 does not equal 2...does that sound kosher?

[discordianpope]

when you take two chestnuts and describe them as two chestnuts you have already started doing the math though. You have identified a set - a mathematical object - and assigned a cardinality to the set. I think, my maths knowledge in't too good. In the very act of carving up reality into these sets of one things, two things, and tens of things, you are already doing the math though. And then when you add these sets together to get bigger sets of things (like chestnuts) you are doing more maths, whether you use numbers to describe the process or not. All this doesn't mean that science can't confirm mathematics though. Just because we didn't begin with an empirical basis for mathematics doesn't mean we can't use the success of science to say "Gee, I guess those mathematical intuitions must have been right, cos all this physics is basically mathematics and it seems to work pretty well!" That's where Vinny is wrong. I actually, I think he is right about mathematics not being empirically testable, but I wouldn't say that it's all just assumed either.

[The Grand Nudger]

when you take two chestnuts and describe them as two chestnuts you have already started doing the math though. You have identified a set - a mathematical object - and assigned a cardinality to the set. I think, my maths knowledge in't too good. In the very act of carving up reality into these sets of one things, two things, and tens of things, you are already doing the math though. And then when you add these sets together to get bigger sets of things (like chestnuts) you are doing more maths, whether you use numbers to describe the process or not. All this doesn't mean that science can't confirm mathematics though. Just because we didn't begin with an empirical basis for mathematics doesn't mean we can't use the success of science to say "Gee, I guess those mathematical intuitions must have been right, cos all this physics is basically mathematics and it seems to work pretty well!"

Trouble is, chestnuts in hand is pretty damned empirical, isn't it?

That's where Vinny is wrong. I actually, I think he is right about mathematics not being empirically testable, but I wouldn't say that it's all just assumed either.

See the above.