It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

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

 

2 + 2 = 5? I will prove it.

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 05:08 PM
link   
+ is a source of power.

Because -5 + 9 is 4. But before the = symbol there where 14 items in tottal. 10 when through a different symbol of equality.





posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 05:12 PM
link   
If you define (+) as (+1) you have a circular reference and the answer will be infinity, not 5!! Every + in the +1 would add an additional + and +1....you get it.

Plus, that isn't logic, this is semantics!

Logic would be:
Premise, every number greater than 1 and smaller than 3 is 2.
Premise, every number greater than 4 and smaller than 6 is 5.
Therefore, 2.0000001 + 2.00000001 = 5.

That can be proven logically, and can be considered correct, but it is still just a rounding convention. Computers make this mistake all the time on grand scales!!

Nice discussion started by OP though, even if it was totally off base!


[edit on 9-10-2009 by getreadyalready]



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 




+ is a source of power. Because -5 + 9 is 4. But before the = symbol there where 14 items in tottal. 10 when through a different symbol of equality.


Wait a minute. There are 3 symbols in -5 + 9. Oh wait, the + symbol has power.

You are confusing me.

Oh I get it. You are trying to prepare me for NWO.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 





Premise, every number greater than 1 and smaller than 3 is 2.
Premise, every number greater than 4 and smaller than 6 is 5.
Therefore, 2.0000001 + 2.00000001 = 5.


You forgot to define a few words and symbols.

Like, what is 2.0000001?



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 05:44 PM
link   

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.

This way all numbers can live in harmony. Every number can equal to another number without destroying our logic.

If that makes sense then good, if it doesn't I apologize because I don't know how else to explain it.

Thanks for your time

oozy


In the words of the great Mr. Ron Burgandy: "That's doesn't make sense".



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
reply to post by spy66
 




+ is a source of power. Because -5 + 9 is 4. But before the = symbol there where 14 items in total. 10 when through a different symbol of equality.


Wait a minute. There are 3 symbols in -5 + 9. Oh wait, the + symbol has power.

You are confusing me.

Oh I get it. You are trying to prepare me for NWO.


Heheh yeah i am preparing you for NWO


2+2 does not mean to count. Because 2+2 is 4 even before it passes over to the right side of =. I know people dont get that.
But you do your counting before you make the equation. And You put in the 4 items you have counted into a process. Which is the equation 2+2.

2+2 is a isolated equation. That means you have selected 4 items to become something new. And you add the power to make the changes.
The symbol of equality is the time + needs to make the changes.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 05:47 PM
link   
*never mind*


[edit on 9-10-2009 by LadySkadi]



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 05:51 PM
link   
Oozy, i like most of your posts. But this nonsense will ruin your credibility if done too often.

We, as people, do not define what + means. It just IS. It is built into the very fabric of the causative nature of our universe. You can "redefine" the symbol or word all you want, but it will do nothing but create a nonsense mathematics. Of course, it may be helpful in some ancillary means (such as coding), but it will not build building that do not fall. It is not a logical idea.

"Plus" is a concept. The symbol is defined by the concept. You could redefine the word "love" to mean "hate", but you will not change the actual concept of love. It is a constant as long as it exists. And "plus" will always exist.

Look into true philosophy. Learn what real logic is. When you apply it to this, you will see that there is nothing remotely resembling logic here.



[edit on 9-10-2009 by bigfatfurrytexan]



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 05:55 PM
link   
All you are doing is saying 5 = 5 in an obscure way, you can't just go changing the meaning of symbols and think it will thus change the value of numbers. It's like saying an apple is a pear just because I said so. ATS should create a trash bin section for all these nonsense threads.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
reply to post by getreadyalready
 





Premise, every number greater than 1 and smaller than 3 is 2.
Premise, every number greater than 4 and smaller than 6 is 5.
Therefore, 2.0000001 + 2.00000001 = 5.


You forgot to define a few words and symbols.

Like, what is 2.0000001?


True, didn't want to get that detailed, just trying to point out the difference between a logical conclusion, and semantics!



[edit on 9-10-2009 by getreadyalready]



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 06:20 PM
link   
I give up.

OP is a NWO agent. I am certain of it.

2 + 2 = 5 or else in NWO



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
I give up.

OP is a NWO agent. I am certain of it.

2 + 2 = 5 or else in NWO


How did i miss that? I have been talking about Orwell and 1984 quite a bit over the last 2 weeks. Wow....duh.


Nice catch.

And, OP...if you are being satirical, good work.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 07:24 PM
link   
I just have to inquire-- How many of you people work for the government??
They seem to have an affinity for unique mathematics to justify their numbers. Especially in the Treasury Department.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 07:31 PM
link   
I really have nothing to say here.
I'll just put that out there front and center.
The only reason I am taking the time to post at all is because I am pissed at myself for even opening this link to this thread.

That being said, did the OP just conclude his first day of Algebra in high school?
A day in which he realizes that by giving numbers variable compositions to achieve a result in question composes an answer to a problem?

This is a completely warped understanding of a basic idea.
The one thing you cannot change in a mathematic equation is the format in how the equation is calculated.



I don't know why, but for some reason this actually pisses me off.
Congratulations OP, your mental masturbation, while believed to be clever by yourself, is so ridiculously simple-minded and confused that I am upset for the future of the human race.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 07:37 PM
link   
Hmmm.....




posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by HrdCorHillbilly
 


That was so funny. Thanks.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 07:54 PM
link   
omg, this post is extremely illogical and I am unsure if this is a joke or not or if the OP is truly trying to debate the basics of mathematics.

"+" is a symbol that allows you to determine what to do with the numbers. In particular the definition is to "add". "=" is a symbol that means "equal to". So, when we say "1+1=2" we are saying "One added to one is equal to two". If we change "+" to mean "+1" it comes out "one plus one one is equal to two" or "1+11=2", however, in written form that now reads "one plus eleven is equal to". Since we changed the definition of "+" to "+1" it becomes apparent that we need a new symbol to make this make sense as the very definition of "+" becomes an infinite string of the number 1.

"+" = "+1"="+11"="+111"="+1111", etc.

Even to change the definition of "+" to "+1+" as one poster suggested would make this an even more complicated process.

"+"="+1+"="+1+1+"="+1+1+1+"="+1+1+1+1+", etc.

So, either way our equation would be "1+1=wtf?".

Someone else suggested to make a new symbol. That would work in a way. Let's say "@=+1+". We could turn our problem into "1@1=3" and that would make sense, but "2+2" can not be equal to 5 if we change the definition of plus to "+1" or "+1+" as "2+2" would be then be equal to infinite.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Hyde70
 


True. It is a recursion.

It's like saying that GNU stands for GNU's Not Unix



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Deaf Alien
 


Your welcome, looked liked this thread needed it.


[edit on 9-10-2009 by HrdCorHillbilly]



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by YouAreDreaming
Can you demonstrate that with 4 apples?

Or four oranges for that matter and make them five?


Easy - I go to the shop and order two apples, then change my mind and order two more.

Now - ask me, with a gun to my head - how many apples in the bag - I'll bet my life its 4.

Then open the bag - and there's 5.

Did the other one appear from an extra dimensional rift? Maybe - or maybe - the shop keeper either didn't hear me, or made a mistake.

But we are so sure we know that 2+2=4, ready to bet our life on it - ready to fight wars over it.

But basically we are flawed and imperfect - and we don't know the difference between 4 and 5, because we rely on information transmitted by our senses and experience - and they are very limited.

If we can't tell the difference between 4 and 5, how can we assert that 2+2=4 is true? We can't - because we don't know.

Right away the argument will be that there was an error that caused the discrepancy. How do you know that? You assume there was an error - perhaps 2 apples went into the bag, then 2 more - and the other apple did indeed appear from an inter dimensional rift - or perhaps 2+2=5.

The point is not whether 2+2=4 - the issue is that there are 5 apples in the bag, and we believe their are 4. The act of belief does not alter anything except our own perception - reality wanders along doing its own thing completely oblivious to what we believe or not.

Unless we can perform an infinite number of tests to prove something - it remains unproven - and infinite is long. I have easily shown that 2+2=4 is not reliable when we introduce people - and everything observed is observed by people.

We rely on observations to determine what we believe - based on concepts of truth - but our observations are indirect, and so belief is unfounded.

[edit on 9-10-2009 by Amagnon]




top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join