Prove to me that 2+2 does not = 4

soo i heard that some indians (native) found out that if you take 2 strings with 2 knots on each then you tie them together you end up 5 knots.. soo that means 2 + 2 equals 5 right there..

I can prove that 1+1=3.

One man and one woman have sex. The woman gets pregnant and gives birth to a child.

The summation of two people has ended up in a result of three.

HHeheeeeee 😄

prove to me that 2+2 does =4

wait, better yet, prove to me that black really isnt white

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
I can prove that 1+1=3.

One man and one woman have sex. The woman gets pregnant and gives birth to a child.

The summation of two people has ended up in a result of three.

HHeheeeeee 😄

Twins... triplets... etc etc... sextuplets

And yes, even negative numbers count.

This thread is stupid.

It's all perception.

Originally posted by lord xyz
This thread is stupid.

But at least it inspires people to try being clever.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But at least it inspires people to try being clever.

Most people don't really understand what was meant by the thread question.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Math is generally referred to as an "Objective Truth" in science.
Objective meaning.."absolute" in its existence or beginning.
By faith alone..numbers used to determine the results of simple equations are assumed to be 100 percent constant. "Constant" meaning..they represent "absolute" values...and are not subject to change.

There are some, however, who believe that everything in life is made up of "Relative Truths." Relative meaning..everything is subject to change, and truth is dependant upon an individual's circumstances/views.

Those of you who believe in "Relative Truths." Please provide for me an explanation..as to how the mathmetical equation.

2 + 2 = 4

Is a relative truth.

**You may not make any "absolute" arguments to prove this relative truth, doing such.. would be contradictory to your position.

The matter of the fact though is that, 2+2 = 4 is defined in multiple systems like that. It's just a matter of definition.

You define 1 and 0 and then call "1+1" "2" and "1+1+1+1" "4" and "1+1+1+1" is defines as the same as "1+1" + "1+1". It's rather simple counting.

And assuming we exist, assuming we can define and assuming most things are the way they seem to us, that is an absolute truth. Not that we can ever be sure, now can we?

This is because most people are stupid.

Not everything is absolute
Not everything is subjective

It's absolute to say that, but it's also subjective. Because what I think is absolute today, might be subjective tommorow, what I find to be subjective tommorow I might find to be absolute next-week.

Only the sith think in absolutes. And even "subjectivists" are guilty of thinking in absolutes. If they admit everything is subjective, then that in itself is an absolute.

I'm more inclined to be annoyed with moral subjectivists then absolutists. Because if morality is subjective, then pain is subjective. There is no moral reason not to just jump someone and rape them to death. Other then the ramifications of socio-justice. But then, why would they be upset? Is everyone else just ignorant of the moral subjectivity of my actions? How convient for the moral subjectivist victim I just raped to death...

Nothing aggarvates me more about others then the fact they think i'm as stupid as they are. I'm no friggin Plato, and neither are they.

I see morality as an intelligent thing. Dumb acts are considered immoral to me, because they're dumb and only bad comes out of it.

Originally posted by lord xyz
I see morality as an intelligent thing. Dumb acts are considered immoral to me, because they're dumb and only bad comes out of it.

Absolute statements can be proven to not be absolute....

For example...being dumb or doing dumb things is not always bad.

If an old lady, who needs to exercise but she forgets that she just turned off the stove, gets up and walks to the kitchen to turn off the stove only to find it turned off...is only in a better disposition than she began with because she was able to gain a bit of physical activity improving her health. of course,the butter fly effect can be applied to this scenario and you can say that she is able to live longer and an event that occurs with her causes a young person to change a little and later run for Presidency of the USA and this young person then becomes one of the best US presidents in history. Bla bla bla...and so forth.

(1) X=Y
(2) X2 = XY
(3) X2 - Y2 = XY-Y2
(4) (X+Y) (X-Y) = Y(X-Y)
(5) X+Y = Y
(6) 2Y = Y
(7) 4 = 2

Therfore 2 + 2 = 8

The step 2 has a flaw. You can't presume that the double of a number is this same number multiplied by himself. Example: 3*2=6 yet 3*3=9, or 1*2=2 yet 1*1=1 (and go on).

Actually i know that it can be mathematically proved that 1+1 is not =2, yet i put aside math by quite some time and i would have to look in a big and scary pille of dusty books 😆

Originally posted by kamhal
The step 2 has a flaw. You can't presume that the double of a number is this same number multiplied by himself. Example: 3*2=6 yet 3*3=9, or 1*2=2 yet 1*1=1 (and go on).

Actually i know that it can be mathematically proved that 1+1 is not =2, yet i put aside math by quite some time and i would have to look in a big and scary pille of dusty books 😆

X^2

that is why I didn't question it...it is hard to do superscript...I guess.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Dude...I think that is supposed to be

X^2

that is why I didn't question it...it is hard to do superscript...I guess.

Oh right, have it. You divide by 0 between step 4 and 5.

(1) X=Y
(2) X2 = XY
(3) X2 - Y2 = XY-Y2
(4) (X+Y) (X-Y) = Y(X-Y)
(5) X+Y = Y
(6) 2Y = Y
(7) 4 = 2

Therfore 2 + 2 = 8

Originally posted by kamhal
The step 2 has a flaw. You can't presume that the double of a number is this same number multiplied by himself. Example: 3*2=6 yet 3*3=9, or 1*2=2 yet 1*1=1 (and go on).

Actually i know that it can be mathematically proved that 1+1 is not =2, yet i put aside math by quite some time and i would have to look in a big and scary pille of dusty books 😆

(4) (X+Y) (X-Y) = Y(X-Y)
(5) X+Y = Y

Here is where it messes up. X = Y. So lets assume X = 2.

(4) (2+2) (2-2) = 2(2-2) Which is saying:
(4) 4 * 0 = 2 * 0 It then tells you that it proves
(5) 4 = 2, but that could be said about any number.

4*0=94949239294524814571*0 Therefore 4=94949239294524814571

But any number times by 0 = 0, so it's basically saying X is a number, and so is 2X, but they're not the same number, obviously.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Have to reconsider.

Oh right, have it. You divide by 0 between step 4 and 5.

Originally posted by lord xyz

No you don't divide by zero between step 4 and 5, you idiot.

A-actually you do.

X = Y => X-Y = 0

You just said what I said, but in less mathematical terms.

Originally posted by Bardock42
A-actually you do.

X = Y => X-Y = 0

You just said what I said, but in less mathematical terms.

(4) (X+Y) (X-Y) = Y(X-Y)
(5) X+Y = Y

How do you think you get rid of the (X-Y)? And X-Y in the real numbers is 0. You can't do that.

Originally posted by Bardock42
(4) (X+Y) (X-Y) = Y(X-Y)
(5) X+Y = Y

How do you think you get rid of the (X-Y)? And X-Y in the real numbers is 0. You can't do that.

Well, what's the link between 3 and 4?