2+2 does not equal 4

[Stanley]

Ed:

You once put down my belief system or I should say my Catholicism because I had admitted I could not prove the existence of God. You then cited a philosopher who had a similar view and that at the end of his life went into a monastery to be a practcing Catholic just in case. I think the guy was Espinosa. I can do a search on it, but who cares, the point is moot. In any event I was surprised to learn Kant had a similar view.

Are you now convinced that 2+2 does not equal 4? Do you need any more information?

[Eddier1]

Originally posted by Stanley
Ed:

You once put down my belief system or I should say my Catholicism because I had admitted I could not prove the existence of God. You then cited a philosopher who had a similar view and that at the end of his life went into a monastery to be a practcing Catholic just in case. I think the guy was Espinosa. I can do a search on it, but who cares, the point is moot. In any event I was surprised to learn Kant had a similar view.

Are you now convinced that 2+2 does not equal 4? Do you need any more information?

No, the philosopher I mentioned to you in that regard of your cultist Catholicism was not Spinoza. It was George Santayana, the Harvard professor of Philosophy for his entire career, and whom was born of a Spanish father and an American woman.

Spinoza, since you bring him up invalidly, was a Portugese Jew, who eschewed the Judaism that he was brought up in, and as an atheist was officially expelled from the synogogue, the largest one to this day in Lisboa. He was constrained physically at the end of one service, for the writings that he had published "privately" to other Philosophers in Europe. They forced him to the floor in the entrance/exit door of the temple, and had all the Jewish congregation step on him as they left the synogogue. After that, he went into voluntary exile in Holland, where the beginnings of religious tolerance were already noticeable, and spent the rest of his short life writing his masterpieces in Philosophy, and working at the trade of grinding lens for glasses, like a proletarian would do.

BTW, my education in math goes up to calculus, and in trignometry I got to use a wooden slide-ruler so I wouldn't have to use Pi to figure out the logrithims (if I recall the spelling correctly). But going into higher mathematics was not necessary later. And in my opinion would have been a waste of time since I would not have to use differential equations in my chosen field of Philosophy.

Many students study things that they will never get to use, and when they do they often make a fool of themselves for lack of practice. Hey, when I got to see later-on an electronic slide ruler, or the Scientific calculator, I was enthralled thinking how much hard work and time I would have saved in getting the "logs" in solving math problems. It was very accurate, unlike the wooden slide ruler, and it gave a statistical coefficiency that was suitable for use by the scientific method. Putting it in as plain terms as I can now, the 2+2=4 could be scientifically explained as a stat-coefficiency, or as an invariant relation in the empirical or external world, if and only if every test came true when 4 was predicted to occur if 2 is added to 2. That is found to be the case in the empirical world, since it deals with units that have 'content' and, therefore, in a scientific sense can be called an iron law of mathematics. In such a case, the scientific explanation is bi-unique with the prediction. And this is scientifically valid, even though there are math games like you displayed that can be fun for persons who like that sort of stuff.

You know you have never told us what your title is, nor if you ever finished college, but was a college drop-out instead. Perhaps, with the smattering of math that you had in college, you got some job making accounts or some other bookeeping gigs. But never mind if you were forced to leave college because the authorities found you to be disruptive and ineducable. The latter is possible given the way you are performing for us on this forum. I hate to say it but it verges on being downright "shady" of you. I hope you are earning a living honestly though...

[Stanley]

No, the philosopher I mentioned to you in that regard of your cultist Catholicism was not Spinoza. It was George Santayana, the Harvard professor of Philosophy for his entire career, and whom was born of a Spanish father and an American woman.

My bad, I couldn't recall the name but I knew he had Spanish sounding name. That is why I thought about Espinosa.


BTW, my education in math goes up to calculus, and in trignometry I got to use a wooden slide-ruler so I wouldn't have to use Pi to figure out the logrithims (if I recall the spelling correctly). But going into higher mathematics was not necessary later. And in my opinion would have been a waste of time since I would not have to use differential equations in my chosen field of Philosophy.

Many students study things that they will never get to use, and when they do they often make a fool of themselves for lack of practice. Hey, when I got to see later-on an electronic slide ruler, or the Scientific calculator, I was enthralled thinking how much hard work and time I would have saved in getting the "logs" in solving math problems. It was very accurate, unlike the wooden slide ruler, and it gave a statistical coefficiency that was suitable for use by the scientific method.

Whether you have formal education or not is moot. If what you say is valid, then is valid.

Putting it in as plain terms as I can now, the 2+2=4 could be scientifically explained as a stat-coefficiency, or as an invariant relation in the empirical or external world, if and only if every test came true when 4 was predicted to occur if 2 is added to 2. That is found to be the case in the empirical world, since it deals with units that have 'content' and, therefore, in a scientific sense can be called an iron law of mathematics. In such a case, the scientific explanation is bi-unique with the prediction. And this is scientifically valid, even though there are math games like you displayed that can be fun for persons who like that sort of stuff.

I agree math is quite similar in both the empirical and the abstract, but not 100% of the time. When we look at the number two in our current reality we have no choice but to round it and assume it is an integer. However, in reality 2 is probaly 2.0002 or 2.000004, ect. No one in the planet is going to be able to draw or make a perfect 2"x2" square.

This brings up the issue of precision in scientific work.

As you can guess 2.0 is not the same as 2.00. And of course 2.00 is not the same as 2.000.

And lastly for 2 to really be close to 2 one would need an infinite number of zeros to the right of the decimal point.



Regarding 2=1

There is a mathematical explanation, I hope you can solve the riddle. It is a rather simple concept and one does not need calculus to solve this. Simple arithmetic is more than enough.

You know you have never told us what your title is, nor if you ever finished college, but was a college drop-out instead. Perhaps, with the smattering of math that you had in college, you got some job making accounts or some other bookeeping gigs. But never mind if you were forced to leave college because the authorities found you to be disruptive and ineducable. The latter is possible given the way you are performing for us on this forum. I hate to say it but it verges on being downright "shady" of you. I hope you are earning a living honestly though...

I have over 20 years of formal education Ed.

[Joshue]

Originally posted by Stanley
Ah! A mathematician brings a breath of fresh air.

2+2=4 from a metaphysical point of view. In our world 2+2 never equals 4.

1/3 = 0.33.............. 3 That certainly creates a problem!

I can picture Ed with his 6th grade wooden ruler trying to come up with a square with identical sides measuring 2". He is not going to be able to do it. And I hope he reads this post so he stops trying.



Josh: I have a trick math question for you. Maybe Ed and Suki can join in to decipher the math.

I will mathematically show that 2=1

Lets say a=b and that a=b=1

then a^2=a*b

We could then write

a^2-b^2=a*b-b^2 (simple substitution)

This becomes

(a+b)(a-b)=b(a-b)

If we divide each side by (a-b) we are left with

a+b=b


by substitution

b+b=b or a+a=a

then

2b=b or 2a=a

by substitution

2=1


Ed do not go into Pablovian mode and react. I am telling you ahead of time that this is a game and 2 does not equal 1.

However, 2+2 does not equal 4. The latter is serious business.





[Edited by Stanley on 24th January 2004 at 03:41]

You almost got me dude.
Bad boy Stanley, bad boy. since the begining the problem states that everything is = 1 all the way up to your subtitution (a+b)(a-b)= b(a-b) the next step is the mistake because (a-b) = 0 and you divided by 0. Bad boy Stan, Bad boy Stan. Dividing by 0 is undefined.

Where you come up with this? I know is hilarious, i saw fast and i could't believe my eyes, then laugh my a$$ off, you got me for a second. I am going to show it at work.

[Joshue]

To Eddie and Stanley.

This is not a trick question, It show one phenomenon in math. Or better describe as a Anomaly [I don't like that word.]

When A x B is not equal to B x A?

Maybe you know, but it is super famous in Quantum studies. It have a history.

[Stanley]

Here you go:

N.B. In general, matrix multiplication does not obey the commutative law , i.e.

[ A ] [ B ] is not equal to [ B ] [ A ]


since the product [ B ] [ A ] may not satisfy the multiplication conformability rule, which means that it is not defined. Even if it is defined, it may not be equal to the product [ A ] [ B ].


For example, consider two ( × ) matrices [ A ] and [ B ] given as

> A := matrix(2, 2, [1, -1, 0, 4]) : B := matrix(2, 2, [1, -2, 3, 6]) : A = matrix(A) ; B = matrix(B) ;






(a) The product [ A ] [ B ] is the following ( × ) matrix:

> `AB` := multiply(A, B) : `A B` = matrix(`AB`) ;




(b) The product [ B ] [ A ] is the following ( × ) matrix:

> `BA` := multiply(B, A) : `B A` = matrix(`BA`) ;




It is obvious that the two product matrices of (a) and (b) are not equal.

http://www.mapleapps.com/powertools/...ces-Unit4.html

[Eddier1]

Maitreya Stan, in a former post you mentioned that you had 20 years of formal education. And now I ask in what field did you obtain a title or a diploma at the end of those long years?

It is incongruous to contemplate that after so many years of study that you didn't obtain a degree in something!

In the U.S., 20 years is the usual time it takes to become a Pyschiatrist... eight years of primary, four years of secondary, three years of pre-med, three years of med, and two years of post-graduate study in Psychology.

Perhaps, you are simply an eccentric who thinks the whole world revolves around yourself, yourself, and yourself, and, therefore, write your own rules about everything, and to hell with the accepted standards of courtesy and responsibility towards the fellow-men you interact with, eh?

[Edited by Eddier1 on 26th January 2004 at 02:14]