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.

# 2 + 2 = 5? I will prove it.

page: 8
4
share:

posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 07:59 PM
reply to post by Deaf Alien

Nope.

There are two objects: a male and a female.

Over time, there are three objects: a male, a female, and a baby.

So that breaks down to 1 + 1 = 3 (overtime)

EDIT: I received this message a little bit ago and would like to share these words as it too will give you something to think about

you two shut everybody else out!! But did give me something to think about..what if our math is primitive? What if we are to young to talk to ET's. What if what we are defending (without bending) a mathematical system that is flawed and because we can see only that 1+1=2. which is what I see. The world is flat!!!!!

[edit on 11-10-2009 by XeoniX]

posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 08:28 PM

you two shut everybody else out!! But did give me something to think about..what if our math is primitive? What if we are to young to talk to ET's. What if what we are defending (without bending) a mathematical system that is flawed and because we can see only that 1+1=2. which is what I see. The world is flat!!!!!

How is counting primitive? Surely the aliens can count?

If I, a primitive human being, met an alien that tells me that "2 + 2 = 5", then I would kick him to the furtherest planet in the universe.

BTW, I know who this U2U came from.

posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 08:41 PM
reply to post by Deaf Alien

wasnt me!

posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 08:42 PM

Did I say it was?

I got you to respond to me in this thread!!!! Mission accomplished!

posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 09:01 PM

BTW, I know who this U2U came from.

Actually it wasn't an U2U, it had came from a person I was chatting with in a shoutbox on another forum that I had turned onto this topic. He had later sent me a pm there. I can't send U2U's yet because of the 20 post rule. I had actually tried to send you one earlier to have a more in-dept conversation with you my friend.

posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 09:03 PM

Actually it wasn't an U2U, it had came from a person I was chatting with in a shoutbox on another forum that I had turned onto this topic. He had later sent me a pm there. I can't send U2U's yet because of the 20 post rule. I had actually tried to send you one earlier to have a more in-dept conversation with you my friend.

posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 09:37 PM

So that breaks down to 1 + 1 = 3 (overtime)

Right. Over time.

1 and 1 produce an offspring. In total there are 3. I believe I covered that in other post.

Logically? 1 + 1 = 2.

posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 09:49 PM
Even our math in time is wrong; that's why we have to add another day every 4 years, to make up, for it not being absolute.

Well my friend it is late here, I have to say it has been great debating with you and you have been a worthy adversary, I don't get many who can speak my language and stay with me. With that said have a good night.

[edit on 11-10-2009 by XeoniX]

posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 09:55 PM

Even our math in time is wrong; that's why we have to add another day every 4 years, to make up, for it not being absolute.

Math is never wrong.

It's our observation and measurements.

So the rotations of Earth and the orbit do not divide up evenly? So what? That is why we have real numbers, not integers.

2 + 2 = 4 is still a counting system.

posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 10:36 PM

Math is never wrong.

I didn't say Math is wrong, I said our math in time is wrong, I believe it was the Aztec (don't hold me to it) tribe that had a more accurate calender. So why do we use one that loses a day every 4 years, because we would rather use a system where we estimate a day as 24 hours, instead of being more accurate and realizing that an earth day is actually 23 h 56 m 4.1 s. Those smaller factors overtime add up enough to equal a whole day.

Just like it's easier to say that 2 + 2 = 4 is absolute, you agreed yourself that 1 + 1 = 3 (overtime) then why is there no way for 2 + 2 to equal 5 we need to take in the smaller factors a little closer before saying it's absolute, because they too can can have a powerful impact overtime. The only thing that I emit is absolute is that eventually everything comes to an end, but even then a new beginning may somehow happen.

It's the decimals and doubles that we as a human race need to take more seriously into consideration instead of always rounding. As these small factors will add up, just look at everything around us; it all consist of something so small we can't even see it, but yet can't live without it, maybe it's time we start giving the smaller stuff more of a voice instead of rounding them off and acting like they can't eventually have enough of an impact to change a simple counting system enough to make an equation like 2 + 2 = 5. But yet these small factors can have a big enough an impact overtime to create an entire universe. Any universe.

BTW in integers 2 + 2 would always equal 4, since an integer is a whole number and don't take into fact at all a decimal factor. So for you to say an integer is not a real number is to say that 2 + 2 = 4 are all not real numbers.
Hence decimal and doubles are more closely real in which they could lead to the fact of 2 + 2 = 5 since they can make a whole number have a slightly greater value but with-in a range that would not place it into a higher whole number.

[edit on 11-10-2009 by XeoniX]

posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 10:51 PM

I didn't say Math is wrong, I said our math in time is wrong, I believe it was the Aztec (don't hold me to it) tribe that had a more accurate calender. So why do we use one that loses a day every 4 years, because we would rather use a system where we estimate a day as 24 hours, instead of being more accurate and realizing that an earth day is actually 23 h 56 m 4.1 s. Those smaller factors overtime add up enough to equal a whole day.

I guess because we like integers? They're more neat. We don't have to bother with those pesky decimal points.

Just like it's easier to say that 2 + 2 = 4 is absolute

Yes. It is the counting that is absolute.

you agreed yourself that 1 + 1 = 3 (overtime)

Yes, over time.

Let's say that at the beginning there are male and female. That's two people. They produced an offspring. That's another person.

Within a time frame, two people make 1 person. That's three people overall within a time frame.

Consider this:

LOGICALLY: 2 + 2 = 4

If we allow 2 + 2 = 5 then the whole mathematical system breaks down. Not to mention science. Our computers wouldn't work.

posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 10:59 PM
Actually our computers would still work as it would see the logic behind decimals and doubles if program to, if needed I can write a simple python program to prove this theory. If you tell a calculator to add 2.5 plus 2.5 it does it with no problem. Computers are dumb and only understand what it is programed to do nothing else.

Anyways I go to get some sleep will pick this up tomorrow.

posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 11:02 PM

Have a good night.

(btw whatever programs you write in is based on logic
I am a computer programmer myself)

See ya tomorrow.

posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 11:11 PM
reply to post by Deaf Alien

Using python it's one line of code:
two = 2.5

or

2 = 2.5

compile and
enter 2 + 2 then hit enter

5

Alright goodnight dude

posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 11:26 PM
Ok let's try this with a different kind of logic... Wukky Logic

Wukky logic dictates that all possibilities no matter how improbable are possible in an improbable universe. Therefore we can see that...

2 is a singular number dictating a dyad, adding that to another 2, we can see that a quartet is established. But as every good quartet requires a manager we have an automatic additional 1 which equals 5. The 1 manager numeral is not inclusive into the equation because 1 is not a part of the preforming quartet.

Of course using Wukky Logic on this you have to assume that the 2+2=5 solution is based on a quite mediocre quartet. The equation 2+2=X Must be present because it would depend on the talent and imitative of the newly formed quartet and the skill of the manager that is added automatically by the formation of the quartet from the two dyad pairs.

[edit on 10/11/2009 by whatukno]

posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 07:44 PM

I like the over time formulation to support the logic 2 + 2 = 5, what do you think? Just because we don't expect something, doesn't necessarily mean it is illogical. We haven't experienced anything compared to the life of the universe, time does matter.

posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 08:00 PM

That would be 2+2+overtime at time and a half = 6 you would have to consider that these are really hard working 2s and put in the extra time.

[edit on 10/15/2009 by whatukno]

new topics

top topics

4