you prove there are infinite numbers with logic

not with counting

I fail to see the beauty in it as a tool. It is a handclap nowadays. I see it as a tool that is given more credit and weight then the actual being that created it. Just like spoken language. Being able to communicate telepathically is beauty to me. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder I might add.

alright

math is a tool used to express that which comes out of the mind to become more then a thought but. I don't need math to do anything accept show another how to manipulate terra into other tools. But I do not need it to live.

I think math is more a set of axioms from which all the true facts are derivable from the laws of logic only. The true facts are true by the nature of logic even if we dont realize they are true yet

As soon as we set the axioms though; what follows is necessary by logic

The fact most of the results are usable as tools is coincidence

And may indicate a fundamental logic to the laws of nature

Nah math is something we use to describe terra that we manipulate into other objects. To much weight it given to it. For example you say 1+1=2 but to me it equals 44 and so forth. That is how you reach a new level of understanding when it comes to math. It is a tool to be manipulated just like any other.

We call two the Successor of 1. It is defined as 1+1

Our disagreement is an issue of definition

If you agreed with my definition you'd have to call 1+1 = 2

Thats the logic to it

no because the first number to be argued is 0

?

irrelevant

1 is defined as the successor of 0

Not

lol

nope

I defined it as such

Just now

O is the first number and 1 is 2 and so forth

If you were working with my definitions you would be forced to agree with me

Otherwise you'd be illogical

Thats the logic about it lol

no sorry not in my reality

I can ascribe any amount to a number

It is you who want to stand for only one thing

But it is not so

In my reality 0 is the first number 1

I am declaring this

2 is the succesor of 1, that is 1 + 1 = 2

If you agree with this definition

You must agree 1 + 1 = 2

No sorry by the time you count to three I have 4 of something and you are behind

1+1=3

So you are declaring the successor of 1 to be 3

We have a disagreement in naming things lol

Not a disagreement with the logic