🗑️ 🧵 2+2=5
Black anon at Fri, 20 Sep 2024 01:45:05 UTC No. 16388615
Can any math student here actually explain why Kareem Carr's claim of 2+2=5 is entirely wrong?
>inb4 'cuz stupid nig'
No, explain via pure mathematics why the statement is always false
Anonymous at Fri, 20 Sep 2024 01:46:48 UTC No. 16388617
>>16388615
Clean it up jannie
Anonymous at Fri, 20 Sep 2024 02:21:32 UTC No. 16388650
>>16388615
Zesty
Anonymous at Fri, 20 Sep 2024 02:46:34 UTC No. 16388686
>>16388615
>2+2=5
>2=-2+5
>2=3
Anonymous at Fri, 20 Sep 2024 03:21:30 UTC No. 16388720
>>16388615
because we've defined mathematics to work a certain way. it's like grammar, saying "she gone there" instead of "she went there" is wrong... because it just is.
If you make up special contexts to evaluate your equation then all bets are off, just like if I said "aha but in Jamaican vernacular, 'she gone there' is entirely correct!" well okay, but that's not the context of a general discussion about grammar.
Anonymous at Fri, 20 Sep 2024 05:09:43 UTC No. 16388822
>>16388686
This shouldn't have made me laugh, but it did.
Anonymous at Fri, 20 Sep 2024 05:17:02 UTC No. 16388832
>>16388615
hes a stupid nig
Anonymous at Fri, 20 Sep 2024 05:18:17 UTC No. 16388834
Anonymous at Fri, 20 Sep 2024 05:29:00 UTC No. 16388844
>>16388615
No idea who this sweet ass sugar licking Puff Daddy victim looking nigga supposed to be. He do look sweet tho.
Anyway the canonical version of 2+2=5 works on any ring of integers Z/nZ : n > 6 and simply postulates an intermission in between any two acts.
Anonymous at Fri, 20 Sep 2024 08:26:03 UTC No. 16389079
>>16388615
OO + OO = OOOO
that's it, that's all the proof I need
Anonymous at Fri, 20 Sep 2024 08:47:07 UTC No. 16389101
>>16388615
>Look at me
>Hey, look at me
>It is me you must look at
There's your explanation. Enjoy your (you). It will be the most successful event of your day.
Anonymous at Fri, 20 Sep 2024 10:56:16 UTC No. 16389188
>>16388615
>Can any math student here actually explain why Kareem Carr's claim of 2+2=5 is entirely wrong?
It doesn't add up.
Anonymous at Fri, 20 Sep 2024 11:32:14 UTC No. 16389224
>>16388686
Ok well what if you don't do that
Anonymous at Fri, 20 Sep 2024 11:44:25 UTC No. 16389236
>>16388615
if you pick up two apples, then pick up two more apples and put them with the previous two, how many apples do you have?
Anonymous at Fri, 20 Sep 2024 11:48:14 UTC No. 16389241
>>16388686
What's the problem?
Anonymous at Fri, 20 Sep 2024 11:49:18 UTC No. 16389243
>>16388686
2 men = 3 women
man = woman
divide both sides by man
2 = 3
Anonymous at Fri, 20 Sep 2024 11:50:31 UTC No. 16389244
>>16388686
Did you forget about dark matter?
Anonymous at Fri, 20 Sep 2024 11:54:34 UTC No. 16389247
>>16388832
True and real.
Math is not for chimps.
/thread
Anonymous at Fri, 20 Sep 2024 12:06:45 UTC No. 16389252
>>16388615
He isn't right because it is in direct contradiction with the principle of 3/5's.
Anonymous at Fri, 20 Sep 2024 15:59:59 UTC No. 16389607
>>16388615
2.49 + 2.49 = 4.99
and now make a GUI that only allows one digit per number.
Anonymous at Fri, 20 Sep 2024 16:32:26 UTC No. 16389680
>>16388720
I agree math is like language. You don't make up words and try to structure them in a sentence. People will look at you crazy as they would not understand what your saying
Anonymous at Fri, 20 Sep 2024 16:33:17 UTC No. 16389681
>>16389243
>divide both sides by man
2=3 wo
Anonymous at Fri, 20 Sep 2024 16:49:46 UTC No. 16389702
Assume that there is a number called zero. Assume every number has a successor. Assume that any number plus zero is the same number. Assume that the successor of the sum of any number and any other number is the sum of the successor of the first number and the second number.
Define two to be the successor of the successor of zero. Define 4 to be the successor of the successor of the successor of the successor of zero.
Then 2+2, meaning the sum of successor of the successor of zero and the successor of the successor of zero, is equal to the sum of the successor of the successor of the successor of zero and the successor of zero, which is equal to the sum of the successor of the successor of the successor of the successor of zero and zero, which is equal to the successor of the successor of the successor of the successor of zero, which is 4.
The above assumptions hold for what any reasonable person might mean by nonnegative integers, which excludes posers trying to win pointless culture battles on twitter.
Anonymous at Fri, 20 Sep 2024 16:54:00 UTC No. 16389714
>>16389098
You are a clueless retard. You don't know shit about the book, and that's why you quote it.
>>16388615
>Can any math student here actually explain why Kareem Carr's claim of 2+2=5 is entirely wrong?
Because 2+2 is 4, not 5.
Black anon at Fri, 20 Sep 2024 17:10:39 UTC No. 16389747
>>16388720
It boils down to definitions/axioms that are used.
In things like Peano arithmetic or the real line ofc the statement is wrong, but in other systems (mod arithmetic etc) not necessarily so
Black anon at Fri, 20 Sep 2024 17:18:49 UTC No. 16389763
>>16389702
True when considering set-theoretic construction of the natural numbers
Black anon at Fri, 20 Sep 2024 17:19:55 UTC No. 16389766
>>16389098
Bertrand Russel?
Anonymous at Fri, 20 Sep 2024 18:11:49 UTC No. 16389856
>>16388615
I honestly don't know much about this guy and I really don't care. If his ideas are actually legitimate then he should write a paper on it and have it peer reviewed and published in a valid mathematical journal. Otherwise he's a quack and anybody can say literally anything. Does he even know what peano arithmetic is or anything about mathematical foundations? He sounds just as bad as grifters who claim they have proved the Reimann Hypothesis.