I'd say it's more that the network "discovered" that addition is something its own structure does "naturally", and reduced the problem into decoding binary input, and encoding binary output. In particular, I don't think it's specifically about
the CPU having an addition operator.
My intuition is as follows: if I were to train this network with pencil, paper and a slide rule, I'd expect the same result. Addition (or maybe rather integration) is embedded in the abstract structure of a neural network as a computation artifact.
Sure, specifics of the substrate may "leak through" - e.g. in the pen-and-paper case, were I to round everything to first decimal space, or in the computer case, was the network implemented with 4-bit floats, I'd expect it not to converge because of loss of precision range (or maybe figure out the logic gate solution). But if the substrate can execute the mathematical model of a neural network to sufficient precision, I'd expect the same result to occur regardless of whether the network is run on paper, on a CPU, an fluid-based analog computer, or a beam of light and a clever arrangement of semi-transparent plastic plates.