Math is fundamental to science.

Science can't prove math. Math proves science. So no, you can't scientifically prove it.

Why all the hate? I mean really, if you thought the question was stupid and didn't want to answer, why did you post? >.>

I remember doing this one in Set Theory, god, I really despised that course. To be honest, I can't remember how it's done, but I do remember that it was very, very long. I really cannot state how much I truly hate this branch of Mathematics, I much prefered my calculus and geometry courses.

edit: Now that I think about it, I'm not entirely sure we've ever finished it. I think the professor may have just mentioned after a short while about how long it may take. Of course, I could be wrong, we must have done over a hundred proofs I can't tell one from the other any more.

dtewi said: I'll mathematically prove it to you. This is easily demonstrated Add to both sides This can be factored Take the square root of both sides Now add to both sides Using properties of equality, we can makes this 2+2=5. Wait...

well 2+2 actually equals 2 in tropical math

dtewi said: I'll mathematically prove it to you. This is easily demonstrated Add to both sides This can be factored Take the square root of both sides Now add to both sides   Using properties of equality, we can makes this 2+2=5. Wait...

Square roots have a positive and negative answer.  You can't simply make the sign positive.  You'll notice one = -1/2 and the other 1/2.  Plus or minus makes them equal. ;).

dtewi said: I'll mathematically prove it to you. This is easily demonstrated Add to both sides This can be factored Take the square root of both sides Now add to both sides   Using properties of equality, we can makes this 2+2=5. Wait...

Nice parlor trick, but, you fail for injecting non-equal numbers into an equation in step one, i guess this works well among your fellow 7th graders though :P

http://us.metamath.org/mpegif/2p2e4.html

Thank you to all who called me names, reguarded my question as "stupid," and threatened to injure me. *sarcasm*
-_-

The starting point is the definition of the numbers 2, 3 and 4, and the associative property of addition:

(a + b) + c = a + (b + c)

Using the inductive definition of natural numbers, the definitions of 2, 3 and 4 are:

2 = 1 + 1
3 = 2 + 1
4 = 3 + 1

You can then replace the 3 by 2 + 1

4 = (2 + 1) + 1

Using the associative property of addition, the equation becomes:

4 = 2 + (1 + 1)

But the definition of 2 is "1+1", so:

4 = 2 + 2

That's the best I can do right now, seems like a reasonable proof relying only on one axiom. Obviously we have to rely on something to start up the proof, since nothing can be proved from nothing.

sounds about right nj5. however i think the correct model uses 3 axioms, i can't quite remember as it was something i learn 3 years ago.

nice to see that someone besides myself actually understood what this kid was talking about. :P