It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# What does 2 + 2 equal?

page: 4
3
share:

posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 06:31 AM

Originally posted by mikerussellus
In Orwells book, 1984 (the movie adaptation) there is a scene where Big Brother is asking Winston that question. The answer they want, is 5.

Why did it have to be 2 + 2? If you want to break people's common sense and force them to answer wrong, why didn't Big Brother force the expected 1 + 1 = 3?

Why did George Orwell chose this option? Was it a random choice or not?

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 07:57 AM

Originally posted by stander

Originally posted by mikerussellus
In Orwells book, 1984 (the movie adaptation) there is a scene where Big Brother is asking Winston that question. The answer they want, is 5.

Why did it have to be 2 + 2? If you want to break people's common sense and force them to answer wrong, why didn't Big Brother force the expected 1 + 1 = 3?

Why did George Orwell chose this option? Was it a random choice or not?

Common sense?

Look at the same equation 2+2 from this point of whew. By using the logic answer 4.

let's say you want 4 to = 2+2 ????

4 dose not automatically = the equation 2+2. As a matter of fact you will never get 4 to = 2+2.

If you divide 4 by 2 you get 2. More accurately you get 2=2. NOT 2+2 ?

Why?

Because you have to make a new equation to divide the 4. That means you have to add 2 negative elements to split the 4 into two equal groups of elements. You will get two equal amounts on each side of equality.

Like this.

4 ÷ 2 = 2 this will after you have worked it out look like this:

2 = 2. This result is not even close to 2+2.

So its wrong to just out of nowhere just decide that 2+2 = 4 Because 4 does not = 2+2.

To get this you have to forget what you have learned in school and start to think totally different. You should start to question what you have been thought.

So what is 2+2 ?

Well it can be anything. But your thought to imagine it to be 4 right of the bat. We are all thought the same logic from the ground up. And all old habits are hard to change.

To do this equation right you have to break everything in to specific elements and power.

You have to look at one piece at a time. You have to ask your self what is 2 ?
Then you have to ask your self what is the other 2?

Then you have to ask your self what power is + in this equation. What is + suppose to do to the two separate elements in this equation. + is what will create the new element on the other side of equality.

If you count all the elements in the equation 2+2 you will get three different elements.

1. 2
2. +
3. 2

Without + you will not have any changes. The Equality symbol represents the time + needs to make the changes to the two different elements of (2).

So you actually have to add in = as well. You cant leave out time.

So now we have 4 different elements that's including time.

1. 2
2. +
3. 2
4. =

Now all these 4 elements create the new element the fifth element. The fifth element is a unknown because you dont know what 2 and 2 is. It is not specified in the equation.

1. 2
2. +
3. 2
4. =
5. ?

If you add up the elements in the equation you get the fifth element. But you dont know what it is until it is created.

Now this is a different way of counting then most people are thought in school.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 02:54 PM

You have misinterpreted the question, "what does 2+2 equal?" You seem to have counted the elements of the solved equation (2+2=4) instead of finding the solution, 4. And you are correct in that if you take all the elements of the equation and add them together it is indeed 5, but I doubt George Orwell meant that in his book. As far as I know it was just a random easy to answer question to show that even the most fundamental truths can be twisted inside your mind. Where Winston was absolutely sure of this simple truth before, his mind was altered completely and its foundations became based on the party instead of the truth afterward.

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 03:23 PM
Watched this film just last night.
The film is decent but the book is frighteningly good.
Considering it was written way back when, it certainly paints a picture of where society is heading now.
As for your question...the answer is four. Would always be four no matter what. Lying to Big Brother is one thing, but lying to myself? No thanks.

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 04:02 PM

Originally posted by cancerian42

You have misinterpreted the question, "what does 2+2 equal?" You seem to have counted the elements of the solved equation (2+2=4) instead of finding the solution, 4. And you are correct in that if you take all the elements of the equation and add them together it is indeed 5, but I doubt George Orwell meant that in his book. As far as I know it was just a random easy to answer question to show that even the most fundamental truths can be twisted inside your mind. Where Winston was absolutely sure of this simple truth before, his mind was altered completely and its foundations became based on the party instead of the truth afterward.

Well what i wanted to show was that 2+2 is a unknown dimension.

Because what if 2+2 is 2+2 buckets of water and you poor out the water into a tub. Do you then have 4 buckets of water or one dimension of water inside that tub?

Illustration.

To poor out 2+2 buckets of water into a tub is the same as adding. You are filling the tub. The tub is what's on the other side of the equality symbol (=).

2 buckets of water + 2 buckets of water = 1 pool of water. Not 4 buckets of water.

But if you are asked how much did you fill into the tub. You would say 4 buckets of water. But there is no way your going to see that by looking into the tub.

I dont know if any one would get this

Edit:

To do this even more confusing.

2+2 = 1

2 is a dimension so is the other 2. If you add them together. You get a new dimension that = 1 new dimension. It doesn't have to be 4. It can be a totally new one.

Is that true or false?

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 04:09 PM

I think your taking this too literally.

en.wikipedia.org...

It is used as an example of an obviously false dogma one must believe, similar to other obviously false slogans by the Party in Nineteen Eighty-Four.

Mathematics is normally considered the "purest" type of scholarship, since it is entirely abstract. It would thus seem to be the least likely to be subject to political manipulation, the "final frontier" where everyone can agree on absolute truths.

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 04:10 PM

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by stander

Originally posted by mikerussellus
In Orwells book, 1984 (the movie adaptation) there is a scene where Big Brother is asking Winston that question. The answer they want, is 5.

Why did it have to be 2 + 2? If you want to break people's common sense and force them to answer wrong, why didn't Big Brother force the expected 1 + 1 = 3?

Why did George Orwell chose this option? Was it a random choice or not?

Common sense?

Look at the same equation 2+2 from this point of whew. By using the logic answer 4.

let's say you want 4 to = 2+2 ????

4 dose not automatically = the equation 2+2. As a matter of fact you will never get 4 to = 2+2.

If you divide 4 by 2 you get 2. More accurately you get 2=2. NOT 2+2 ?

Why?

Because you have to make a new equation to divide the 4. That means you have to add 2 negative elements to split the 4 into two equal groups of elements. You will get two equal amounts on each side of equality.

Like this.

4 ÷ 2 = 2 this will after you have worked it out look like this:

2 = 2. This result is not even close to 2+2.

So its wrong to just out of nowhere just decide that 2+2 = 4 Because 4 does not = 2+2.

To get this you have to forget what you have learned in school and start to think totally different. You should start to question what you have been thought.

So what is 2+2 ?

Well it can be anything. But your thought to imagine it to be 4 right of the bat. We are all thought the same logic from the ground up. And all old habits are hard to change.

To do this equation right you have to break everything in to specific elements and power.

You have to look at one piece at a time. You have to ask your self what is 2 ?
Then you have to ask your self what is the other 2?

Then you have to ask your self what power is + in this equation. What is + suppose to do to the two separate elements in this equation. + is what will create the new element on the other side of equality.

If you count all the elements in the equation 2+2 you will get three different elements.

1. 2
2. +
3. 2

Without + you will not have any changes. The Equality symbol represents the time + needs to make the changes to the two different elements of (2).

So you actually have to add in = as well. You cant leave out time.

So now we have 4 different elements that's including time.

1. 2
2. +
3. 2
4. =

Now all these 4 elements create the new element the fifth element. The fifth element is a unknown because you dont know what 2 and 2 is. It is not specified in the equation.

1. 2
2. +
3. 2
4. =
5. ?

If you add up the elements in the equation you get the fifth element. But you dont know what it is until it is created.

Now this is a different way of counting then most people are thought in school.

Adding up elements opens other possibilities such as 1 + 1 = 5, 1 + 2 = 5 and so on. Why would George Orwell opt for 2 + 2 = 5?

George Orwell did things in pretty logical way. Suppose that a writer sends his final draft to the publisher on December 4. What year was it?

Take a shot a it: month x day = year.
So 12 x 4 = 48 and the year could be 1948.

Orwell, who had "encapsulate[d] the thesis at the heart of his novel" in 1944, wrote most of Nineteen Eighty-Four on the island of Jura, Scotland, during 1947–1948 while critically ill with tuberculosis.[1] He sent the final typescript to his friends Secker and Warburg on 4 December 1948 and the book was published on 8 June 1949.

To answer the question regarding 2 + 2 = ? means to answer the question regarding his choice of the title of his book "1984." He was finishing his book in '48 and went to the future by swapping the digits -- '48 became '84.

Orwell didn't make random choices, so why he didn't use the expected 1 + 1 = 3?

Your "element counting" explanation is not good in the view of 12 x 4 = 48. (Dec. x 4 = '48). Orwell was using arithmetic and digit swapping to make choices.

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 04:33 PM

Well of course my counting makes sense.

The clue is that a equation is a isolated design from all other elements surrounding it. The answer you get is a finite answer in a cycle of changes at a specific time of observation.

What is 1+1 ?

Well it can be anything. That is the clue. If the equation is not specific about the elements within the equation.

1. 1 is unknown element
2. + unknown action or force because the elements are not specified in the equation. You dont know what action + really will do with the elements. Because the designer hasn't specified the equation.

3. 1 is a unknown element.

4. = is the time + needs to change 1 and 1.

the result will be the fifth element. But you wont know what it is until the equation makes it. Because it is not specified what 1 + 1 is by the designer.

5. is unknown.

1+1 is not automatically 2. Because 2 does not = the equation 1+1.

2 = what

It can be a lot of things besides 1+1.

2 is just one of many answers.

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 04:54 PM

Originally posted by spy66

Well of course my counting makes sense.

But not to George Orwell. He never used this approach to make choices.

BTW, 2 + 2 = 4 elements. That's 2, +, 2, and =.

[edit on 8/9/2009 by stander]

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 05:02 PM

Originally posted by LiveForever8

I think your taking this too literally.

en.wikipedia.org...

It is used as an example of an obviously false dogma one must believe, similar to other obviously false slogans by the Party in Nineteen Eighty-Four.

Mathematics is normally considered the "purest" type of scholarship, since it is entirely abstract. It would thus seem to be the least likely to be subject to political manipulation, the "final frontier" where everyone can agree on absolute truths.

I agree to what you say here totally. But i also take it literally because i work with numbers all the time its a hobby

The way we do math or is thought math is far from accurate.

We are thought to focus on the rules of a equation so we can do them as intended by the designer of the equations.

Why!!! are they always right?

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 05:07 PM

Yer, well im more of a 'words' man so i dont understand anything your talking about

Although it does sound interesting, maybe you should start a new thread on it, you seem to know your stuff.

I just think in this instance your fighting a losing battle

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 05:08 PM

Originally posted by stander

Originally posted by spy66

Well of course my counting makes sense.

But not to George Orwell. He never used this approach to make choices.

BTW, 2 + 2 = 4 elements. That's 2, +, 2, and =.

[edit on 8/9/2009 by stander]

To me 4 is just one of many different answers possible from the equation 2+2.

But you are groomed to think that 4 is the only right answer. You know!!! you have your education just like every one else has. You are not wrong, but you are limited.

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 05:10 PM

Originally posted by spy66
2+2 = 1

2 is a dimension so is the other 2. If you add them together. You get a new dimension that = 1 new dimension. It doesn't have to be 4. It can be a totally new one.

Is that true or false?

2 is a number not a dimension. If you add 2 and 2 you do get 1 number, but that number is not 1, it is 4 and always will be 4, because numbers are abstract, not tangible things, they are amounts. Add 2 buckets of water to 2 buckets of water and you have 4 buckets of water, which may equal 1 tub, but a tub is not a bucket. 2x+2x=4x=y (x=buckets) (y=tub)

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 05:20 PM

Originally posted by cancerian42

Originally posted by spy66
2+2 = 1

2 is a dimension so is the other 2. If you add them together. You get a new dimension that = 1 new dimension. It doesn't have to be 4. It can be a totally new one.

Is that true or false?

2 is a number not a dimension. If you add 2 and 2 you do get 1 number, but that number is not 1, it is 4 and always will be 4, because numbers are abstract, not tangible things, they are amounts. Add 2 buckets of water to 2 buckets of water and you have 4 buckets of water, which may equal 1 tub, but a tub is not a bucket. 2x+2x=4x=y (x=buckets) (y=tub)

Well that is the problem nr 2.
Numbers in math is never just numbers. Neither is ABC.... or other symbols just symbols. Mmmm

That's why you cant imagine what i am talking about. Numbers ain't just sticks. rocks or fingers. Every number, letter or symbol represents a lot more then that.

EDIT:

I see that you dont understand what i mean if you dont get the equation with the water buckets. And it was so easy too.

It illustrated how 2+2 can be 1. I told you that if you poor 4 buckets of water into a tub. Which is on the other side of equality. You get one dimension of water. Not 4.

But if you ask how many buckets i poured into the tub. I will say 4.

But you will never know it by just looking into the tub. Don't you get it?

A clue:

If you didn't know how the water got into the tube. Could you just by looking into tub. Tell me how many buckets of water i poured into it?

Will you see 4 buckets of poured water in that tub?

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 05:40 PM

You can use symbols and manipulate them apart from what they are primarily used for. For example, you take the year 1984 and break it down into its elements: the digits 1, 9, 8, and 4. The result does not have any practical application, though. But it does. Add the digits together:

1 + 9 + 8 + 4 = 22.

Now treat this as an equation: shrinking the left side will expand the right side:

1984 = 2 + 2

But that's wrong!
No, it's not; it's partially correct

198(4 = 2 + 2)

Now you know that 1984 is actually "1984," the title of George Orwell's book, coz "? = 2 + 2" appears there.

Embarassing simplicity in the making . . .
Lets's ignore it. That's what we do the best.

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 05:58 PM

Originally posted by stander

You can use symbols and manipulate them apart from what they are primarily used for. For example, you take the year 1984 and break it down into its elements: the digits 1, 9, 8, and 4. The result does not have any practical application, though. But it does. Add the digits together:

1 + 9 + 8 + 4 = 22.

Now treat this as an equation: shrinking the left side will expand the right side:

1984 = 2 + 2

But that's wrong!
No, it's not; it's partially correct

198(4 = 2 + 2)

Now you know that 1984 is actually "1984," the title of George Orwell's book, coz "? = 2 + 2" appears there.

Embarassing simplicity in the making . . .
Lets's ignore it. That's what we do the best.

Well what you say is true. But it can't be compared to the equation 2+2.

Why?

Because 1984 is not a equation. You are making a equation out of 1984. That is a totally different matter.

It is specific. You already know the answer. The equation is easy.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 06:13 PM

I have a equation that can tell you some more.

If you didn't know how i made it. How would you know that +4 used to be
-5 + 9 ???

You would never ever know by just looking at +4. You would think i made it by 2+2 ?

And if i dont tell you what 2+2 is you would never understand that i got a pool of water either. You would think i just got 4 of something.

But if you look at the pool of water you will understand that you thought wrong.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 06:25 PM

Originally posted by spy66
I see that you dont understand what i mean if you dont get the equation with the water buckets. And it was so easy too.

It illustrated how 2+2 can be 1. I told you that if you poor 4 buckets of water into a tub. Which is on the other side of equality. You get one dimension of water. Not 4.

But if you ask how many buckets i poured into the tub. I will say 4.

But you will never know it by just looking into the tub. Don't you get it?
[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

I must be a fool, unlike you.

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 06:26 PM

Orwell had to think how to come up with a wrong answer to 2 + 2 = ?
But if 2 + 2, the two 2's relate to 1984, the same number should relate to the wrong answer. So Orwell used this option:

1 + 9 + 8 + 4 = 22
1 x 9 - 8 + 4 = 5

Here is the 5 that relates to 22 as 5 = 2 + 2.

Look up what happened on 5/22/1984 and you will understand the true meaning of "prophecy."

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 06:34 PM
2 + 2 is 4!!

Do I win?

But seriously, put this into perspective, because it happens all the time.

"It's easier for people to believe a really big lie than a small one."
"It's easier to lie to a million people than to lie to one. "

Who said those things, I wonder. . .?

TPTB put their spin on everything we hear. They condition us to believe what they want us to.

top topics

3