• sushibowl@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    1 month ago

    Then again, I thought 1+1=2 is axiomatic (2 being the defined by having a count of one and then another one) So I don’t understand why Bertrand Russel had to spend 86 pages proving it from baser fundamentals.

    Well, he was trying to derive essentially all of contemporary mathematics from an extremely minimal set of axioms and formalisms. The purpose wasn’t really to just prove 1+1=2; that was just something that happened along the way. The goal was to create a consistent foundation for mathematics from which every true statement could be proven.

    Of course, then Kurt Gödel came along and threw all of Russell’s work in the trash.

    • silasmariner
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      Saying it was all thrown in the trash feels a bit glib to me. It was a colossal and important endeavour – all Gödel proved was that it wouldn’t help solve the problem it was designed to solve. As an exemplar of the theoretical power one can form from a limited set of axiomatic constructions and the methodologies one would use it was phenomenal. In many ways I admire the philosophical hardball played by constructivists, and I would never count Russell amongst their number, but the work did preemptively field what would otherwise have been aseries of complaints that would’ve been a massive pain in the arse

      • tetris11@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        Smarmy git, strolling around a finite space with an air of pure arrogant certainty.