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

[Boxing Pythagoras]

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?

Yes, you are wrong in your "proof," because (as I mentioned) 2+2=4 is not at all the same question as 2s+2e=2g. You didn't rebut any unstated assumptions. You asked an entirely different question and pretended it was relevant to the conversation.

[Paprika]

Yes, you are wrong in your "proof," because (as I mentioned) 2+2=4 is not at all the same question as 2s+2e=2g. You didn't rebut any unstated assumptions. You asked an entirely different question and pretended it was relevant to the conversation.

Nonsense BP, numbers ARE their symbolic representations in the base numbering system they are contained in.

[Bill the Cat]

So is your idiocy. As per normal.

Says the one who can't answer my rebuttal. Your distractions are obvious that you have lost this debate.

[Paprika]

Says the one who can't answer my rebuttal. Your distractions are obvious that you have lost this debate.

Debate? Why on earth would I debate you, especially when you're not supposed to post to me, and will back out at any time?

[Bill the Cat]

Yes, you are wrong in your "proof," because (as I mentioned) 2+2=4 is not at all the same question as 2s+2e=2g.

Because you have to ASSUME that 2 and 4 are in base 10. Are you denying that you have made that assumption?

You didn't rebut any unstated assumptions.

I most certainly did. I rebutted the assumption that these numbers HAD to be base 10, and that regardless of the system that these characters are included in, the character "2" added to the character "2" will always equal the character "4".

You asked an entirely different question and pretended it was relevant to the conversation.

No I didn't. I simply changed the ASSUMED numbering system from the common base 10 to a base 3. The character "2" is the same in both systems, is it not? But there is no such character in Base 3 displayed as "4".

[Bill the Cat]

Debate? Why on earth would I debate you, especially when you're not supposed to post to me, and will back out at any time?

Because you know you have been defeated. But it is quite fun watching you squirm like a worm on a hook. You are thoroughly incompetent, and this part of the thread is ample proof.

[Paprika]

Because you know you have been defeated. But it is quite fun watching you squirm like a worm on a hook. You are thoroughly incompetent, and this part of the thread is ample proof.

[Bill the Cat]

Hello_Loser_by_HaloKitty10461.jpg

[Paprika]

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

I count seven times thus far.

Or were you using some other non-standard symbolic representation for numbers?

[Bill the Cat]

I count seven times thus far.

Or were you using some other non-standard symbolic representation for numbers?

This is too much fun. It is quite the body of evidence that you suck at a debate. As your typical pattern, you run your diarrhea mouth, get slapped around by facts, and then run to the ad hominem as your only line of defense hoping that everyone will forget that you were run around like a cheap crack whore looking for a fix. But, by all means, please do go on about how manly you are...

[Paprika]

As your typical pattern, I run your diarrhea mouth, get slapped around by facts, and then run to the ad hominem as your only line of defense hoping that everyone will forget that I were run around like a cheap crack whore looking for a fix.

Fixed.

But, by all means, please do go on about how manly you are...

Where on earth, pray tell, did I even start talking about that?

[Bill the Cat]

And with that, I leave you to your self-importance. Merry Christmas to all.

[Paprika]

And with that, I leave you to your self-importance. Merry Christmas to all.

Come back another time!

Can't leave that "rule" unbroken for too long, after all.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Because you have to ASSUME that 2 and 4 are in base 10. Are you denying that you have made that assumption?

Similarly, I have to assume that you are writing to me in English. What's your point?

I most certainly did. I rebutted the assumption that these numbers HAD to be base 10, and that regardless of the system that these characters are included in, the character "2" added to the character "2" will always equal the character "4".

The question wasn't "Will the symbolic statement 2+2=4 be valid in all number systems?" The question was "does two added to two yield four?" And, regardless of the base of the number system utilized, two added to two will always yield four.

No I didn't. I simply changed the ASSUMED numbering system from the common base 10 to a base 3. The character "2" is the same in both systems, is it not? But there is no such character in Base 3 displayed as "4".

And if I change the assumed language of our discussion from English to Koine Greek, then we have both simply been scribbling nonsense this whole time. Your argument is entirely disingenuous.

[David Hayward]

Just to muddy the water yet further, 2 + 2 = 5 (and 2 + 2 =4 is incorrect) for sufficiently large values of 2, and sufficiently small values of 5.

eg 2.4 + 2.4 = 4.8

There's also the question of how to add haystacks (2 + 2 = 1?) or shoals. And if I add two ingredients and two more ingredients, might I end up with one cake? If I add two children to two adults (and all are human, remember, so we are not adding dissimilars), I definitely end up with one nuclear family. I agree with Bill, 2 + 2 = 4 is system-dependent.