2 + 2 = 5? I will prove it.

reply to post by oozyism


Yeah, okay, oozoy. Did you happen to read 1984 recently, or watch the movie lately? You have posted some interestlng and controversial threads in your short time here, but this is just stupid. Come on. You can do better

Originally posted by oozyism
People always try to see if an impossible logic is possible, here I will demonstrate that 2 + 2 can actually = 5.

How is it possible you may ask? Well all you do is change the definition of '+'. If + was defined as +1, we have succeeded.

oozy

2 +1 2 = wait a minute, there's another "+" in there. Lets try again.

2 +1 1 2 = wait a minute, there's another "+" in there. Lets try again.

This is starting to feel like a game of Whack a Mole (let "mole" = "+" in this case). I get what you are trying to say, but maybe your example falls under the realm of philosophy- not science.

reply to post by jawsismyfish



No, no - math can be anything you want it to be - as long as the variables are defined... Gotta love it, huh?

[edit on 9-10-2009 by LadySkadi]

reply to post by LadySkadi

Now:

Assumption: (+)= addition, (+)=+1+total, (=)=+1+total


2 + 2 =4 (+1) = 4 (+1) = 4
or
2 + 2 =4 + 1 =5 (+1) =5
or
(2 + 2) =4 + 1 =6

I'm still getting the same answers - Oooz!

umm

Stop killing the fun...

The original equation:
2+2=5

Break it down:
2+2 = 4 + 1 = 5

The outcome is 5.

You know thats a Radiohead song title right? I too have often thought what that meant if the number values signifyied anything.

Originally posted by kyred
reply to post by oozyism

 

Yeah, okay, oozoy. Did you happen to read 1984 recently, or watch the movie lately? You have posted some interestlng and controversial threads in your short time here, but this is just stupid. Come on. You can do better

Common stay longer, haven't I proved that I can prove 2+2=5. Read the replies.

reply to post by oozyism


Ahh, dude, I'm just playing. I'm not even sure those answers are right... Wouldn't want to bet a million dollars on it, anyway.

Originally posted by LadySkadi
reply to post by oozyism

 

Ahh, dude, I'm just playing. I'm not even sure those answers are right... Wouldn't want to bet a million dollars on it, anyway.

OK what does 1+1 equal to?

Everyone knows this one

Originally posted by oozyism

Originally posted by LadySkadi
reply to post by oozyism

 

Ahh, dude, I'm just playing. I'm not even sure those answers are right... Wouldn't want to bet a million dollars on it, anyway.

OK what does 1+1 equal to?

Everyone knows this one

well that depends... am I a mathematician, a statistician or an accountant?

Originally posted by oozyism
People always try to see if an impossible logic is possible, here I will demonstrate that 2 + 2 can actually = 5.

How is it possible you may ask? Well all you do is change the definition of '+'. If + was defined as +1, we have succeeded.

oozy

No, that fails. If + = +1, then
2+2 => 2+12 = 14

reply to post by LadySkadi


A carpenter

Think outside the box

reply to post by daniel_g


Define (+) as (+) & (Total+1)

So 2+2=5 because of (Total+1)

Amazing right lol

reply to post by oozyism


To teach you logic, I'd first need some of your pencil lead...even then, I'm afraid it would be more than I could manage and maintain what's left of the sanity left to my disposal.

From the sounds of it, something more abstract than the most profound of abstract thinkers have even about achieving, is what you seek. Who knows? Keep after it, and in say, one or two eons, it will be the "new math". Fortunately, I'll have left the plane of this existence lllooonnnngggg before that happens.

Tell us of your plans for the minus (-), multiplication (X), and division (/) signs. I am sure the plans you have envisioned for these operands will be enlightening, and provide a huge amount of insight into the evolution of a new way of mathematical problem solving.

reply to post by LadySkadi

So, it goes 2 (+1) 2 = 5 or wait, doesn't that = 6?

I agree.

reply to post by pyrytyes


If we allow the operation to change, all conflict in maths will be destroyed.

2 could = 7 if we allow the operation to change. So if (=) is defined as (=) & (outcome+5), 2 could potentially = 7


[edit on 9-10-2009 by oozyism]

reply to post by oozyism


"If we allow the operation to change, all conflict in maths will be destroyed."

That says it all ...IF we allowed that to happen I am sure we will have created
an "ID TEN T" error. Got it.
Thanks for the edjumakasion.

reply to post by oozyism


Okay. I am really tired right now so bear or bare with me.

I think you want to define "+" as "+ 1 +". However, even if you defined it this way or the way you were defining it, it would lead to some kind of infinite defining process, because then what are the "+"s in the definition of the "+"? It looks as though you defined infinity.

You say you can define "+" as "+" & "+1" but I do not think multi-definitions work in mathematics (none thus far I have seen anyway).

What you could do is just make a different symbol for what you are trying to do.

E.g. Let "∝" = "+ 1 +", which essentially makes "∝" a brand new operator and you can still let the number "2" be the operand.

So, 2∝2 = 5

I will check back tomorrow to see if that makes sense.

ttyl



[edit on 9-10-2009 by Unlimitedpossibilities]

according to my logic
1+1= window

Actually hes correct.. Hes talking about 2 + 2 = 5 on the computer.. as in litteraly 2+ 2 = 5 .. the actual equation.. he changed the rule that + = + and then add one .. as in the plus adds and also is an automatic +1.

lol no?

So does the minus sign equal -1 in this strange logic of yours. So would
6-4= 1 or 5-4=0, I think you have gone off on some tangent trying to apply extra dimensions to old math processes. There are better ways to account for the presence of positive or negative polarity compensation to a number through mathmatics.

If that is not what you are thinking then I cannot see it having any possible real logic. I actually think it sounds like you need to spin yourself into school and learn the true nature of the force that is mathmatics.

The stone fact is that I cannot see any mathmatic breakthrough here only a bit of light humor.