And here's one thread on twitter linking the argument there, and I've see it mentioned in many tweets such as
Amazing........2+2=5 was supposed to be a metaphor for the leftist logic of gender But instead of claiming it's not the right comparison, they are trying to actually justify 2+2=5.
It immediately made me think of the Trans movement. It's calling something true (2+2=5, trans women are women) that clearly isn't. If you wanna chop your junk up and rearrange it, fine have fun, but I'm not calling you a woman, I'm calling you mentally unstable, because you are.
And also because I see no other reason you would bring this debate to this forum, other than the fact that no one cared about your sex is binary argument in the Cancel Culture thread.
We have agreed that 2+2=4 on the straight single number line using the basic integer addition rules.
You seem to want to only discuss this most simplistic 1-dimensional case, and also make everyone else agree that "THIS IS THE CORRECT ASSUMPTION" and everyone should immediately recognize this assumption as the 'TRUTH'.
------
But vector addition is a much used method of addition, which assumes there is one other dimension -- direction. In some cases, knowing direction is necessary to compute the correct result for one's problem.
A simplified example:
You drive from your house to your friend's house by:
Driving a distance of 2 miles East,
then turning right and driving a distance of 2 miles North.
When you add these two vectors together, you calculate the distance your friend's house is from your house:
The result is your friend's house is less than 3 miles away from your house (square root of 8 miles).
You can try it yourself in this vector addition calculator: (putting in the magnitude of each vector as 2, and the direction of the first as 0, while the direction of the second vector as 90.
The result: They add up to 2.8284, with a direction of 45.
even simpler is the point you made regarding rounding, which is important when we have a limit of significant figures that we use. I work with numbers all day that are rounded to some level of significant figures. For surveys, it's almost always rounded to the nearest whole integer. So it's not unusual for me to have an example like this:
People who cite brown as their favorite color -- 2%
People who cite white as their favorite color -- 2%
People who cite either white OR brown as their favorite color -- 5%
Because those 2s represent a value from 1.5% to 2.5%, I could have an instance where 2+2=5. In fact, that sort of thing happens all the time. And it's not because I'm a "lefty" or I'm "woke." It's because math.
Here's an article that has nothing to do with this recent "wokeness" faux controversy. It was written a couple of years ago, and it's about significant figures:
And here's one thread on twitter linking the argument there, and I've see it mentioned in many tweets such as
And also because I see no other reason you would bring this debate to this forum, other than the fact that no one cared about your sex is binary argument in the Cancel Culture thread.
I wasn't trying to tie this to any other thread and I wasn't aware of that book's existence until I followed your link. Like Matt Taibbi, I saw quite a few people going through absurd mental gymnastics to try and disprove 2+2=4. As I am often surprised on things we can't agree upon around these parts, I thought "well we have to be able to agree that 2+2=4".
I guess I was wrong. And like other threads I'm sure people will make all kinds of presumptions about my other beliefs as you are clearly doing.
While Lindsay is rather prolific on Twitter and I don't have time to read through all of his threads, I don't see him focusing his ire on the trans community. I see him taking issue with people who go after STEM, defund math, or assert that objective truths do not exist.
— James Lindsay, swings a big saber (@ConceptualJames) August 4, 2020
It's probably just about talking about alternative axioms and odd definitions for the symbols involved. Any mathematician worth his salt would know that. Any who doesn't must be stupid and not get it. (This is how it plays academics, by the way: their fear of looking dumb.) pic.twitter.com/CG07C4WSFV
— James Lindsay, swings a big saber (@ConceptualJames) August 5, 2020
We have agreed that 2+2=4 on the straight single number line using the basic integer addition rules.
You seem to want to only discuss this most simplistic 1-dimensional case, and also make everyone else agree that "THIS IS THE CORRECT ASSUMPTION" and everyone should immediately recognize this assumption as the 'TRUTH'.
------
But vector addition is a much used method of addition, which assumes there is one other dimension -- direction. In some cases, knowing direction is necessary to compute the correct result for one's problem.
A simplified example:
You drive from your house to your friend's house by:
Driving a distance of 2 miles East,
then turning right and driving a distance of 2 miles North.
When you add these two vectors together, you calculate the distance your friend's house is from your house:
The result is your friend's house is less than 3 miles away from your house (square root of 8 miles).
You can try it yourself in this vector addition calculator: (putting in the magnitude of each vector as 2, and the direction of the first as 0, while the direction of the second vector as 90.
The result: They add up to 2.8284, with a direction of 45.
even simpler is the point you made regarding rounding, which is important when we have a limit of significant figures that we use. I work with numbers all day that are rounded to some level of significant figures. For surveys, it's almost always rounded to the nearest whole integer. So it's not unusual for me to have an example like this:
People who cite brown as their favorite color -- 2%
People who cite white as their favorite color -- 2%
People who cite either white OR brown as their favorite color -- 5%
Because those 2s represent a value from 1.5% to 2.5%, I could have an instance where 2+2=5. In fact, that sort of thing happens all the time. And it's not because I'm a "lefty" or I'm "woke." It's because math.
Here's an article that has nothing to do with this recent "wokeness" faux controversy. It was written a couple of years ago, and it's about significant figures:
This is pretty tedious. You went and found a 2 year old blog post that is basically the same example referenced prior where the blogger is clearly not adding 2 and 2?
This is pretty tedious. You went and found a 2 year old blog post that is basically the same example referenced prior where the blogger is clearly not adding 2 and 2?
do you really not understand that in many, many instances, the numeral 2 represents a value from 1.5 to 2.5? Or are you just being obstinate?
If it's the former I really am done here, because why would I continue to argue math with someone who doesn't understand an elementary school concept?
I wasn't trying to tie this to any other thread and I wasn't aware of that book's existence until I followed your link. Like Matt Taibbi, I saw quite a few people going through absurd mental gymnastics to try and disprove 2+2=4. As I am often surprised on things we can't agree upon around these parts, I thought "well we have to be able to agree that 2+2=4".
we actually did agree, with the stipulation that that equation is true under a certain set of assumptions. It's you who is causing the disagreement by insisting that there are no circumstances under which 2+2 does not equal 4. When clearly there are, given other sets of assumptions.
You belittle those tweets asking why Math is core subject, and who it benefits... however it is necessary to ask such questions and evaluate the answers.
For example, current methods for examining content and test bias tend to be somewhat archaic. Incorrect assumptions (interestingly, such as assumptions of unidimensionality) or incomplete methodology (looking at items individually instead of tests as a whole) can lead to undetected bias in tests.
For example: The bias within the SAT analogies test was missed for a very long time, and was subject to many years of debate among experts in the field:
You belittle those tweets asking why Math is core subject, and who it benefits... however it is necessary to ask such questions and evaluate the answers.
For example, current methods for examining content and test bias tend to be somewhat archaic. Incorrect assumptions (interestingly, such as assumptions of unidimensionality) or incomplete methodology (looking at items individually instead of tests as a whole) can lead to undetected bias in tests.
For example: The bias within the SAT analogies test was missed for a very long time, and was subject to many years of debate among experts in the field:
We can talk about bias on standardized tests, but where you start to lose me is when people say things like Math is a tool of White Supremacy.
As our own district used biased gate-keeping/exception methods that prevented many students, and disproportionately Black students, from enrolling in advanced math courses, I can see how perceptions such as "Math is a tool of White Supremacy" would occur.
The district addressed some 'tools' that had maintained the status quo, but some biased systems remain. It is challenging to identify how to improve biased systems, so it's easy to see how something simpler, like Math, could get the blame. The appropriate response, however, is not to 'lose' or ignore the message, but to recognize there is a problem, identify the actual root causes, and address them.
Right. I've fielded this. 2.4+2.4 is 4.8. You can round, but there is all kinds of additional context you should add which was the subtext of the blog post ml1 sent. Saying 2+2= anything but 4 requires clarification because you clearly are not adding 2 and 2.
Not really. But people keep arguing that 2+2 != 4. And the argument that seems to be popular around here is a word game. What if 2 isn't really 2? That is an odd argument.
So, again restating your premise... and not answering the questions. Got it.
It's not my premise. Someone asserted *gasp* 2+2=4. This started an unknowable amount of activity on twitter of people trying to disprove it through word games or changing meanings, etc. I wondered if people here subscribed to that nonsense.
So, again restating your premise... and not answering the questions. Got it.
It's not my premise. Someone asserted *gasp* 2+2=4. This started an unknowable amount of activity on twitter of people trying to disprove it through word games or changing meanings, etc. I wondered if people here subscribed to that nonsense.
I think the answer is a definite yes.
So... you only came to self-answer a poorly thought through assertion/question that was on the Internets. Got it.
Well, there's this book published a couple of months ago:
https://www.amazon.com/How-Transgender-Craze-Redefining-Reality/dp/B089CXDSCD
And here's one thread on twitter linking the argument there, and I've see it mentioned in many tweets such as
And also because I see no other reason you would bring this debate to this forum, other than the fact that no one cared about your sex is binary argument in the Cancel Culture thread.