Message from @Sassy Undeniably
Discord ID: 648015363182690334
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
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
why do you say logic
my logic is sound
Nothing is a number
it is called zero
I literally said your logic was sound
Well
Valid
at least
So if I have nothing it is still something
What does that mean
Nothing is something is this matrix