Does 1+1=2 have a "probability"?

[humy]

I am fairly sure but not absolutely sure that, according to strictly conventional terminology for philosophy ( and probability theory I assume ), statements such as "1+1=2" or "all triangles have three sides" don't have a 'probability' but merely have a 'truth value' i.e. it is simply true or false with 'no' probability 'defined'.
Is this accurate and true?

( I would be grateful for an answer esp if either a real expert who is absolutely certain of this confirm (or refute) this here or if someone give me a [ hopefully accurate ] quote from either a web link or actual book that clearly and irrefutably explicitly asserts/implies that (assuming it is correct) with absolutely no room for interpreting it in any other way.

The reason I want to know that with absolute certainty is because I am writing a book and I want to state this in my book (assuming it is correct) but it would be embarrassing if I didn't get all my facts absolutely straight in my book )

[JSS]

It has a probability.
.. of exactly 100%.

[Obvious Leo]

Q. Why do all triangles have three sides?

A. Because if they didn't they wouldn't be triangles.

A free gratis contribution from the philosophy of the bloody obvious.

[Impenitent]

only in Euclidean space...

-Imp

[Arising_uk]

only in Euclidean space...

-Imp

Eh!? Even in a non-euclidean space I'd have thought a triangle had only three sides?

[Obvious Leo]

only in Euclidean space...

-Imp

Eh!? Even in a non-euclidean space I'd have thought a triangle had only three sides?

Yes.

[JSS]

But what if they got it wrong?

What if in reality a triangle has four sides?
What if 1+1 really equals 3?

How would you know??

[humy]

But what if they got it wrong?

What if in reality a triangle has four sides?
What if 1+1 really equals 3?

How would you know??

Perhaps all I have to show that they are 'right' or 'wrong' is to either show that there is a good general agreement that the definition of triangle is a shape with 3 sides, or show there is general disagreement to that definition?
But I fear there is a big thorny issue here of whether a person's definition of something is still 'valid' if nobody else agrees to his exact same definition.

[Obvious Leo]

Tell the bloke who reckons a triangle can have some other number of sides that he's perfectly entitled to his own opinion but he'll have to piss off and invent his own geometry.

[JSS]

Perhaps all I have to show that they are 'right' or 'wrong' is to either show that there is a good general agreement that the definition of triangle is a shape with 3 sides, or show there is general disagreement to that definition?

You got it.

But I fear there is a big thorny issue here of whether a person's definition of something is still 'valid' if nobody else agrees to his exact same definition.

A definition being valid means that in the current discussion, the definition is agreed upon. That is what makes a definition valid - agreement. The rest of the world might disagree, but you are talking to the rest of the world at the time. The participants must agree.

[humy]

Perhaps all I have to show that they are 'right' or 'wrong' is to either show that there is a good general agreement that the definition of triangle is a shape with 3 sides, or show there is general disagreement to that definition?

You got it.

But I fear there is a big thorny issue here of whether a person's definition of something is still 'valid' if nobody else agrees to his exact same definition.

A definition being valid means that in the current discussion, the definition is agreed upon. That is what makes a definition valid - agreement. The rest of the world might disagree, but you are talking to the rest of the world at the time. The participants must agree.

I think you are right.

I need to explain this in my book I am writing ( about a very complex theory I have about epistemology ) so perhaps I should say in my book something like;
"...
I define a definition that as a truth value as 'true' as one where the majority of people using the given language in the context of the given culture or subculture are in total agreement with. I define a definition that as a truth value as 'false' as one where the majority of people using the given language in the context of the given culture or subculture are in total disagreement with.

There is a couple of gray area issues with the above two definitions that would be an unwelcome and unnecessary distraction from the main theme of my book and would do little to improve the work behind my book even if resolved thus I won't discuss them in my book but rather merely state what they are below but then just leave them unresolved. These two gray area issues are:

What if the majority of that population cannot make up their minds if they are in total agreement with that definition?
What if we have three, mutually exclusive definitions, i.e. each logically contradicting the other two, and each is only agreed by 1/3 of the population? would they all be 'true' or 'false' or would that be too ambiguous to determine?

..."

[humy]

sorry, misprint in my last post:

"I define a definition that as a truth value.."
should be;
"I define a definition that has a truth value..."

[JSS]

If I may...

I think that you are trying too hard.

A definition is merely an explanation of what a word is to mean during the discussion. A definition is valid for a given conversation if it is agreed upon. There is no such thing as a "true" or "false" definition. It is either valid or invalid by agreement for the discussion at hand, not true or false. Although society attempts to set standards for everyone to use .. IF they will.

sorry, misprint in my last post:

"I define a definition that as a truth value.."
should be;
"I define a definition that has a truth value..."

I was about to say that I couldn't make heads or tails of your sentence structure.

[humy]

sorry, misprint in my last post:

"I define a definition that as a truth value.."
should be;
"I define a definition that has a truth value..."

Sorry, ; still not right. That should be:

"I define a definition that has a truth value of 'true' ..."

and twice I said that wrong.

[Obvious Leo]

I agree with JSS. The notion of a definition of anything at all having a truth value is meaningless, even if absolutely EVERYBODY is in complete agreement. it just makes for a more useful conversation if the participants in it are talking about the same thing, although my wife and I have got along just fine for nearly forty years without bothering with such trivia.