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

[Boxing Pythagoras]

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

2.4 is not a value of 2, and 4.8 is not a value of 5. "Approximations to" are not "values of."

There's also the question of how to add haystacks (2 + 2 = 1?) or shoals.

Here, you are conflating "adding" and "combining." These are not the same operation.

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.

Despite your protestations, you are utilizing dissimilars. Ingredients compose cakes, but are not equivalent to cakes. Humans compose families, but are not equivalent to families. You are conflating units in precisely the same manner that Bill was.

[37818]

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.

Totally not relevant to a quantity of two taken twice being equal to four. And that simple truth needing God. Without a understanding who and "what" God is and to what the term "God" refers, it can certainy appear that God is in no way needed.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Totally not relevant to a quantity of two taken twice being equal to four. And that simple truth needing God. Without a understanding who and "what" God is and to what the term "God" refers, it can certainy appear that God is in no way needed.

Even with a number of possible ways of "understanding [of] who and 'what' God is and to what the term 'God' refers," it can certainly appear that God is in no way needed. It is only on very specific conceptions of God that such a being might be necessary to the concept of 2+2=4.

[shunyadragon]

What is God?

God is a 3 letter word.

What is 2 + 2 = 4

Sum of two numbers using base 10 math

[37818]

What is God?

God is a 3 letter word.

What is 2 + 2 = 4
Ii
Sum of two numbers using base 10 math

Hi Shunny. Seriously, can you give a necessity for God in order for the sum of two plus two to equal four?

[JonathanL]

God is a 3 letter word.

A triangle has three sides/corners.

ILLUMINATI CONFIRMED

[Paprika]

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.

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.

I can divide n numbers amongst m sets. Therefore the sum of the n numbers is m.

[Carrikature]

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



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".



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".

I'm having a hard time taking you seriously here. It's hardly an assumption that the numbers were expressed in base ten given it's the default mode of numeric representation. You might as well protest the assumption that points scored in football actually involved a football.

[Bill the Cat]

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

Are there other languages that people communicate in that use the same words, grammar, and sentence structure as English?

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.

Sorry BP, but in Base3, there is no such value as "4", so 2 added to 2 does not yield 4. It yields 11. It's as nonsensical as saying dog + cat = orange.

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.

You are correct that English grammar is nonsensical in Koine Greek. But you would not argue that the Greek speaker is being disingenuous because your use of the term "dog" instead of his "Kuon". There is no such thing in his language as a "dog", so to him, pointing at that 4 legged creature will never yield the term "dog" from him.

http://virgil.azwestern.edu/~dag/lol/TwoPlusTwo.html

[Bill the Cat]

I'm having a hard time taking you seriously here. It's hardly an assumption that the numbers were expressed in base ten given it's the default mode of numeric representation. You might as well protest the assumption that points scored in football actually involved a football.

Sorry, but you proved my point. When you specify "football" , or even "a touchdown", you have specified the system of counting. If I were to say John scored 3 goals in 2 consecutive games and asked you how many total points John scored, what would your answer be?

If it were a soccer match, the answer would be 6
If it were a hockey match, the answer would be 6
If it were Australian Rules Football, it would be 36

[shunyadragon]

Hi Shunny. Seriously, can you give a necessity for God in order for the sum of two plus two to equal four?

No

[Teallaura]

Sorry, but you proved my point. When you specify "football" , or even "a touchdown", you have specified the system of counting. If I were to say John scored 3 goals in 2 consecutive games and asked you how many total points John scored, what would your answer be?

If it were a soccer match, the answer would be 6
If it were a hockey match, the answer would be 6
If it were Australian Rules Football, it would be 36

Is there ever a case where the representation 2 + 2 = will result in an answer other than 4? Not a different base, not 2.3 or some such - is there a case when the formula AS WRITTEN 2 + 2 = yields a result other than 4?

[shunyadragon]

A triangle has three sides/corners.

ILLUMINATI CONFIRMED

Your logic is improving with illuminating wonders!!!

[Carrikature]

Sorry, but you proved my point. When you specify "football" , or even "a touchdown", you have specified the system of counting. If I were to say John scored 3 goals in 2 consecutive games and asked you how many total points John scored, what would your answer be?

If it were a soccer match, the answer would be 6
If it were a hockey match, the answer would be 6
If it were Australian Rules Football, it would be 36

No, I did not. It is understood that points in football require a football. It is understood that a number unaccompanied by a base designation is in base ten. You know this. I know you do, because you repeatedly have specified base three in an attempt to argue a point.

In answer to your question, my response would be to do ask what game john was playing. No one feels the need to ask what base a number is in.

[Bill the Cat]

No, I did not.

Yes you did.

It is understood that points in football require a football.

And an established system of counting.

It is understood that a number unaccompanied by a base designation is in base ten.

Wrong. It is ASSUMED. But when I do subnetting, and I list a subnet mask as 11111111 11111111 00000000 00000000, I do not understand the unaccompanied base as 10.

You know this.

For the most part, yes. It is an assumption that is generally correct, but there are exceptions.

I know you do, because you repeatedly have specified base three in an attempt to argue a point.

And the point remains. The system that contains the numbers dictates what the value of the character means, and limits the available character set. Just as the link I offered shows.

In answer to your question, my response would be to do ask what game john was playing.

Thus establishing what system you were using to count. Q.E.D.

No one feels the need to ask what base a number is in.

But they must know what system to use, and a number base system is one such example that changes the representation of a value. I've provided several examples and support from an Intro to Psychology 101 course. So...