Does 2 + 2 = 4 need a god to be true?

[Paprika]

Exactly. The system defines what is true and what isn't. Exit the system, and truth changes meaning.

Numbers are not their symbolic representations. "2+2=4" expresses a mathematical truth which is independent of the language system, not that the symbol '4' exists in all (possible) representations of numbers.

[firstfloor]

Does 2 + 2 = 4 need a god to be true?

If by a god one means a mere deity, then no.
If by a god one means the LORD God, then the answer is yes.

This has too many redundant parameters. All that is needed for arithmetic to work is stable matter. And that is the same for everything else. The simplest god consistent with arithmetic and everything else, if you must call it god, is synonymous with that stability.

[Bill the Cat]

Yes, actually, it is a basic truth for any base counting system. Regardless of what symbols we use to represent the concepts of two, four, addition, and equation, the statement that those symbols represents remains true.

The base-2 symbolism 10+10=100 is still "two plus two equals four." This is absolutely no different from a Greek mathematician saying that "β' added to β' results in δ'" or "dos mas dos es cuatro" or "(1+1)+(1+1)=(8/2)." In exactly the same way that "the sky is blue" is a basic fact regardless of whether someone is speaking English, Spanish, French, or Japanese, "2+2=4" is a basic fact of arithmetic regardless of the language used to express those concepts.

Yes, the value of the sum can be said to be equidistant from a 0 reference if we are assuming that the 2 digits are similar and whole. From a pure arithmetic standpoint. But when we look at practical application, we need qualifiers. For instance 2 sperm cells and 2 egg cells do not produce 4 gametes. It is when we have to specify that the sperm cell is only mathematically half of the necessary components of the final whole result that we see that 2 sperm cells + 2 egg cells = 2 gametes. So, one must still make assumptions.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Yes, the value of the sum can be said to be equidistant from a 0 reference if we are assuming that the 2 digits are similar and whole. From a pure arithmetic standpoint. But when we look at practical application, we need qualifiers. For instance 2 sperm cells and 2 egg cells do not produce 4 gametes. It is when we have to specify that the sperm cell is only mathematically half of the necessary components of the final whole result that we see that 2 sperm cells + 2 egg cells = 2 gametes. So, one must still make assumptions.

The arithmetic statement 2+2=4 assumes that both two's and the four are composed of the same units. Two sperm cells are not the same units as 2 egg cells. Your example is more equivalent to the algebraic expression 2s+2e=2g, not the arithmetic 2+2=2. The simple fact of the matter is that adding two to two yields four, no matter what symbols for counting one decides to use.

[Bill the Cat]

The arithmetic statement 2+2=4 assumes that both two's and the four are composed of the same units. Two sperm cells are not the same units as 2 egg cells. Your example is more equivalent to the algebraic expression 2s+2e=2g, not the arithmetic 2+2=2. The simple fact of the matter is that adding two to two yields four, no matter what symbols for counting one decides to use.

That's what I said. The statement made in the OP does not specifically state that it is an arithmetically constructed statement, so a reduction ad absurdum can be applied which may change the arithmetic representation, but not the practical. Assumptions can be challenged, even if they are challenging the assumed obvious.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

That's what I said. The statement made in the OP does not specifically state that it is an arithmetically constructed statement, so a reduction ad absurdum can be applied which may change the arithmetic representation, but not the practical. Assumptions can be challenged, even if they are challenging the assumed obvious.

Ridiculous. You might as well say, "Well, if I define 'blue' to mean the spectrum of light with wavelength between 625 and 750 nanometers, then Crayola was wrong to mark that crayon 'Blue!'" Sure, if you completely and arbitrarily redefine a common term to mean something other than its common usage, you'll get a different result. The OP's intention, however, was obviously not your absurd redefinition of terms. It was a reference to the bare arithmetical fact that 2+2=4.

[Bill the Cat]

Numbers are not their symbolic representations. "2+2=4" expresses a mathematical truth which is independent of the language system, not that the symbol '4' exists in all (possible) representations of numbers.

I'm going to break my rule one more time because you are such an asshat.

Sorry, dipwad, no it doesn't. 2_B3 + 2_B3 does NOT equal 4_B3 because the symbol "4_B3" is nonsensical in the B3 system. You have to ASSUME that the OP means that the characters "2" and "4" are in a larger base numbering system than B4. Numbers ARE their symbolic representations in the base numbering system they are contained in. I'll give you an example and watch you make an ass out of yourself...

Does 21 = 21?
Does 21_B16 = 21_B10?

Of course not. The character must have a frame of reference for it to mean something. So, let's watch you froth at the mouth and call me names while ignoring the obvious implication that you made an ASSUMPTION that I just disproved.

[Bill the Cat]

Ridiculous. You might as well say, "Well, if I define 'blue' to mean the spectrum of light with wavelength between 625 and 750 nanometers, then Crayola was wrong to mark that crayon 'Blue!'" Sure, if you completely and arbitrarily redefine a common term to mean something other than its common usage, you'll get a different result. The OP's intention, however, was obviously not your absurd redefinition of terms. It was a reference to the bare arithmetical fact that 2+2=4.

Sorry, BP but I have to disagree. Claiming something as "absolutely true" invites testing based on rebutting those unstated assumptions. If there are no specifics stated, it is not wrong to use non-common methods. Am I wrong in my proof or not?

[Paprika]

So, let's watch me froth at the mouth and call you names

Fixed

[Bill the Cat]

Fixed

Exactly. When you have nothing, you run like a little coward. Loser.

[Paprika]

Exactly. When you have nothing, you run like a little coward. Loser.

So, let's watch me froth at the mouth and call you names

Indeed.

[Bill the Cat]

Indeed.

Typical moron. Ignores the most important parts of the post and grabs an out of context snippet and then puffs his little bird chest out like he's a man.

[Paprika]

Typical moron. Ignores the most important parts of the post and grabs an out of context snippet and then puffs his little bird chest out like he's a man.

So, let's watch me froth at the mouth and call you names

By the way, your self-control is most impressive

[Bill the Cat]

By the way, your self-control is most impressive

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

And your debate skills are at mastery levels

[Paprika]

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

And your debate skills are at mastery levels

So is your idiocy. As per normal.