• @smeg@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    322 hours ago

    I’d love to see the practical applications of someone taking 360 pages to justify that 1+1=2

    • @bleistift2@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      514 hours ago

      The practical application isn’t the proof that 1+1=2. That’s just a side-effect. The application was building a framework for proving mathematical statements. At the time the principia were written, Maths wasn’t nearly as grounded in demonstrable facts and reason as it is today. Even though the principia failed (for reasons to be developed some 30 years later), the idea that every proposition should be proven from as few and as simple axioms as possible prevailed.

      Now if you’re asking: Why should we prove math? Then the answer is: All of physics.

      • rockerface 🇺🇦
        link
        fedilink
        English
        19 hours ago

        The answer to the last question is even simpler and broader than that. Math should be proven because all of science should be proven. That is what separates modern science from delusion and self-deception

    • xigoi
      link
      English
      2
      edit-2
      19 hours ago

      It lays the foundations for automated proof verification, which is going to help with the development of new theorems as well as automated reasoning about computer programs…

      • @smeg@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        211 hours ago

        But like… what does the proof even entail? I feel if you asked a child (or maybe me) what the proof was they’d say “well the definition of those two numbers, and the definition of plus means that 1+1=2”. What else is there?