Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

The universal nature of mathematical truth isn’t dependent on agreement. Instead it’s only universally true when you include all those seemingly unspoken “agreements.”



> isn’t dependent on agreement

It is by definition. If you disagree, go write a mathematical proof that 1 = 1. There are many in the world who would love to see it.


Hardly, there are sets of axioms where 1 = 1 which already show this in exquisite detail.


I'm not sure what you mean by this, particularly this phrasing: "sets of axioms where 1 = 1". 1 = 1 is an axiom, not something that's proven by any set of axioms.

But I'm willing to believe I'm simply naive here. You say there is some set of axioms which prove that 1 = 1. Are those axioms not agreements? Since you seem to be familiar, what are those axioms?


What you are missing is 1 = 1 isn’t inherently true on it’s own.

There are sets of axioms where 1 = 1 is false, different sets where it’s undefined, and finally sets of axioms where 1 = 1 is true.

However, for a given set of axioms there is no choice and nothing to agree upon. That’s what makes math universally true.




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: