It wasn’t until the 1900s that Principal Mathematica was written in order to derive fundamental axioms that can be used to derive all other mathematic principles.
This is the book that people often partially joke about it being the first exhaustive proof that 1+1=2.
I guess my point is also the compliment to your point. Even things that are right are not always obvious.
I think your point is actually “even things that are right and obvious are not always obviously right” or something like that. It’s obvious to all of us that 1+1=2, and it is correct, but it isn’t correct because it’s obvious. It just happens to be both obvious and correct, but for very different reasons.
It wasn’t until the 1900s that Principal Mathematica was written in order to derive fundamental axioms that can be used to derive all other mathematic principles.
This is the book that people often partially joke about it being the first exhaustive proof that 1+1=2.
I guess my point is also the compliment to your point. Even things that are right are not always obvious.
I think your point is actually “even things that are right and obvious are not always obviously right” or something like that. It’s obvious to all of us that 1+1=2, and it is correct, but it isn’t correct because it’s obvious. It just happens to be both obvious and correct, but for very different reasons.
Probably. Because I read what you said and agree. Maybe I said it badly.
Do you mean Principia Mathematica?
Yeah. Auto correct or dyslexia. I like to blame autocorrect.