>>>> Jay
>>>Somewhere, in a box, I have a published proof that 1 + 1 = 2 (I have never read it, its pure 'math/logic' notation). It's almost 200 pages of standard paperback pages!
>
>I had to do that proof in advanced calculus, I think it was. For me it only took about 2-3 pages. It all depends on how much you're "given" to start with, like if they're real #s, real functions, base 10, stuff like that, only more complex. Given *nothing at all*, the proof is considerably difficult, as you have to build your definitions and logic up from scratch. That's where the 200 pages come in.
>
>That kind of "built-from-scratch" proof is real easy for a math pro to pick apart and find holes in, too :-)

My sense is that such "proofs" are designed more to test the robustness of reasoning of the proof than to confirm what our naive approach to counting understands which, by the way <g>, is what causes us to ask the question to begin with.

>
>>BTW, I am glad to hear that 1+1 = 2. I have been relying on that for some time, now <g>.
>
>Uh-oh, you're in trouble! We all know that 1 + 1 = 10, don't we?

You know, Bruce, that's uncomfortably close to Borg land <g>...

Jay