I‘ve waited for this to play out before commenting.
The issue with 2 + 2 = 5 playing out in @ConceptualJames’ feed is about the “Principle of Explosion” and is quite serious despite the stupidity of the exercise. It isn’t about math, conventions or assumptions. It’s about us. pic.twitter.com/UUXZ5oMI6w
LOL. I think we can agree on this. 2+2=4. Assuming:
when we say 2 we mean 2*
When we say + we mean add **
When we say = we mean equals **
when we say 4 we mean 4 *
*IS A POSITIVE INTEGER
**ALONG A SINGLE STRAIGHT NUMBER LINE (ONE DIMENSIONAL)
Do you agree that you are making these assumptions indicated by the asterisks?
Boy your persistent, and I can't believe I need to point this out, but the common use of the notation assumes integers in a base 10 system and does not assume modular mathematics. Any reasonable person will make these assumptions unless the notation is different or a varying assumption was noted.
Anyone claiming otherwise is probably trying to win an argument on the Internet. If you want truth Weinstein says it here:
So one team yells “What about the assumptions!!” but is really saying “I don’t want folks I dislike telling me that things have to be some particular way in an objective reality!” Yet ultimately that will lead to the Principle of Explosion & the loss of the “Unity of Knowledge”.
Of course this is correct. Which is my point all along. Thr original question was purposely devoid of context in order to troll people. It was never really a math question.
Of course this is correct. Which is my point all along. Thr original question was purposely devoid of context in order to troll people. It was never really a math question.
What question? There was no challenge. It was a meme.
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.
do you truly not understand the concept of significant figures in expressing values?
Ok. Now you're trying to tell me wht I typed. I stated that there was an argument happening on twitter. Which there was. Lindsay did not challenge anyone. People saw his meme and tried to refute by trying to change the meaning of known terms.
I asked people to confirm that they are not in board with that nonsense. When it was clear that many were I was shocked. In my wildest dreams I didn't think there would be a 100 post thread that would try to convince me that sometimes 2+2=5. Yet, here we are.
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.
do you truly not understand the concept of significant figures in expressing values?
I have understood significant figures since I was 8 years old. I also understood that 2+2=4
I asked people to confirm that they are not in board with that nonsense. When it was clear that many were I was shocked. In my wildest dreams I didn't think there would be a 100 post thread that would try to convince me that sometimes 2+2=5. Yet, here we are.
Ok. Now you're trying to tell me wht I typed. I stated that there was an argument happening on twitter. Which there was. Lindsay did not challenge anyone. People saw his meme and tried to refute by trying to change the meaning of known terms.
I asked people to confirm that they are not in board with that nonsense. When it was clear that many were I was shocked. In my wildest dreams I didn't think there would be a 100 post thread that would try to convince me that sometimes 2+2=5. Yet, here we are.
Ok. Now you're trying to tell me wht I typed. I stated that there was an argument happening on twitter. Which there was. Lindsay did not challenge anyone. People saw his meme and tried to refute by trying to change the meaning of known terms.
I asked people to confirm that they are not in board with that nonsense. When it was clear that many were I was shocked. In my wildest dreams I didn't think there would be a 100 post thread that would try to convince me that sometimes 2+2=5. Yet, here we are.
you weren't shocked.
I figured maybe there would be 1 or 2 but people would say an, this is too much . I actually thought you would be one of the people who would chime in with some reason. Boy was I wrong.
I really don't know what to say, other than I'm going to take a break. This is too depressing.
As you seem to agree with Weinstein that reality can be destroyed by people debating 2+2=4, I'm sorry to tell you this... but apparently your version of reality will be gone soon. It will be replaced by a new one, much improved.
Your examples were trivial at best. IMO, it's close minded to think anyone who disagrees with you is close minded. My bias is towards reality.
It takes only a few simple examples to make the point. And it's not that you disagree. It's that you are simply rejecting our responses without any apparent thought or consideration.
I figured maybe there would be 1 or 2 but people would say an, this is too much . I actually thought you would be one of the people who would chime in with some reason. Boy was I wrong.
I really don't know what to say, other than I'm going to take a break. This is too depressing.
I feel sorry for you if it depresses you to see that other people see nuance and alternative ways of thought instead of just blacks and whites.
I feel sorry for you if it depresses you to see that other people see nuance and alternative ways of thought instead of just blacks and whites.
Oh please. You were trying to prove your tribe right. That is all.
If one were to come on this board and express doubt about vaccinations they will be labelled a denier. If they question the government reaction to the pandemic that has cost something like 50 million people their jobs you will say that they are anti-science. If someone questions the wisdom of looting and rioting you will join in shouting them down. If someone votes for Trump, you will think the worst of them.
Apparently, if one were to come on this board and say 2+2=4 you will even join the mob against them.
Oh please. You were trying to prove your tribe right. That is all.
If one were to come on this board and express doubt about vaccinations they will be labelled a denier. If they question the government reaction to the pandemic that has cost something like 50 million people their jobs you will say that they are anti-science. If someone questions the wisdom of looting and rioting you will join in shouting them down. If someone votes for Trump, you will think the worst of them.
Apparently, if one were to come on this board and say 2+2=4 you will even join the mob against them.
this is your bias. Thinking that my survey example is anything more than math. It's not my "tribe" or "libs" or anything else you believe it is. It's numbers.
You are blind to your own bias here. Sprout and I expressed absolutely nothing about politics, tribes or ideology. Go back and read it again and try to find anything "tribal." You won't. Because it isn't there.
I've just been pointing out examples that show what dumb trolling it was that started the whole "argument."
Who would look at a statement like "some people are arguing that 2 + 2 doesn't equal 4" and not assume there must be some extra context -- units, or rounding, or some other missing piece of information, involved? And who would post such a thing and then get upset when people assume there must be some missing context and try to fill in some reasonable guesses as to what that context might be?
Who would look at a statement like "some people are arguing that 2 + 2 doesn't equal 4" and not assume there must be some extra context -- units, or rounding, or some other missing piece of information, involved? And who would post such a thing and then get upset when people assume there must be some missing context and try to fill in some reasonable guesses as to what that context might be?
Who would look at a statement like "some people are arguing that 2 + 2 doesn't equal 4" and not assume there must be some extra context -- units, or rounding, or some other missing piece of information, involved? And who would post such a thing and then get upset when people assume there must be some missing context and try to fill in some reasonable guesses as to what that context might be?
No... you have proven yourself unable to answer two simple questions.