Theorem 1. Two plus two equals four.
Proof of Theorem 1. The set of integers is an (infinite) group with respect to
addition. Since 2 is an integer, the sum of 2 and 2 must also be an integer.
Suppose, for the sake of contradiction, that 2 + 2 < 4. We have 2 > 0.
Adding two to both sides, we get 2+2 > 0+2. Since 0 is the identity element
for addition, we have 2 + 2 > 2. Hence
2 < 2 + 2 < 4
so 2 + 2 must equal 3. Since 3 is prime, by Fermat’s Little Theorem we
have the following for a ∈ Z
+:
a
3−1 ≡ 1 (mod 3)
a
3−1 ≡ 1 (mod 2 + 2)
But
a
3−1 =
a
3
a
=
a × a × a
a
= a × a
and, for a = 2,
2 × 2 ≡ 0 (mod 2 + 2)
since, by the definition of multiplication, 2 × 2 = 2 + 2. So, we have
2
3−1 ≡ 0 (mod 2 + 2)
2
2+2−1 ≡ 0 (mod 2 + 2)
This is a contradiction to Fermat’s Little Theorem, so 2 + 2 must not be
prime. But 3 is prime. Hence 2+2 must not equal 3, and therefore 2+2 ≥ 4.
It remains to show that 2 + 2 is not greater than 4. To prove this we need
the following lemma:
Lemma 1. ∀a ∈ Z, if a > 4, ∃b ∈ Z such that b > 0 and a − 2 = 2 + b.
If a were a solution to the equation 2 + 2 = a, then we would have
a − 2 = 2 + 0. The lemma states that this cannot hold for any a > 4, and so
a = 4, as desired. So, it only remains to prove our lemma.
Aaron Segal, 2010 2 + 2 = 4
Proof of Lemma 1. The proof is by induction over a. Our base case is a = 5.
Let 5−2 = 2+b. Five is the 5th Fibonacci number, and 2 is the 3rd Fibonacci
number. Therefore, by the definition of Fibonacci numbers, 5 − 2 must be
the 4th Fibonacci number. Letting fi denote the ith Fibonacci number, then
we have
fi − fi−1 > 0
for i 6= 2, because f2 − f1 = f0 and f0 = 0, but f1 = 1, and the Fibonacci
sequence is nondecreasing. Hence (5 − 2) − 2 > 0.
Now, suppose that ∃b ∈ Z such that b > 0 and (k − 1) − 2 = 2 + b. We
need to prove that, for some b
0 > 0, k − 2 = 2 + b
0
. Our inductive hypothesis
is equivalent to:
k − 1 − 2 = 2 + b
k − 1 − 2 + 1 = 2 + b + 1
k − 2 = 2 + (b + 1)
Since 1 > 0 and b > 0, we have (b + 1) > 0. Thus, letting b
0 = b + 1, we
have a nonnegative solution to k − 2 = 2 + b
0
, as desired.
By Lemma 1, it is not the case that 2 + 2 > 4. Hence 2 + 2 ≤ 4. We also
have 2 + 2 ≥ 4. Therefore,
2 + 2 = 4
tl;dr: top kek build the wall
