/sci/ - Science & Math

only midwits care about this 2+2=5 nonsense
it's literally just the flavor of the month political race bait

>>11988058
No, it isn't. If pop mechanics is coming out to say this, you know it's leaking into the wider culture. We can't say anymore that this is just limited to crazy people talking. These people are revolutionaries that are explicitly trying to subvert thought.

>>11988069
my friend, it's just people trying to insert themselves into relevancy by latching onto the newest political trend. this one just has happened to be science related so all the things you normally read/interact with are talking about it. in two weeks nobody will give a fuck because there's no substance.
each news outlet will do a single "2+2=5 is wrong right...? but what if....??" article or vsauce will probably put out a surface-level video that talks about actual math surrounding this idea, but it's still just a fad. it's just about money and fame like everything else.

>>11988080
I wish you were right, I really do. But you aren't. Entire academic disciplines are being created to refute the entire concept of science. Critical race theory is an entire discipline that has arisen to destroy the western concept of science. The barbarians are getting closer to the gate every day. The clock is ticking; You can't afford to ignore them for much longer.

>>11988127
spoken like a true schizo who's not involved in academia at all.
I'm out of here arguing with crazies never works out
just post this on >>>/pol/ and be done with it

>>11988157
I can't fucking believe I'm saying this, but /pol/ might be right.
>Stop noticing things
>Anyone who disagrees with me is a schizo
You're one of the useful idiots I think.

God, tankie here. I fucking hate anarchists like this.

Why don't they use mathematics to make a nuke against the US rather than this sophistry?

>>11988054
I think the destruction of maths is doubleplus good, brother.

>>11988287
based Orwell. I don't know how the fuck we would be able to recognize what's going on without his insight.

Reminds me of this mathematics book, Mathematics of Yahweh Ben Yahweh. He was convicted of conspiring to murder white people, which was an initiation rite to his sect.
Looking back, at least he was more intelligent then the Harvard retard in OPs article, because he clarified the objects that he meant.
Using the '+' operator with '=' is linear, and using it in the "2+2=5" sense is abuse of notation.

>>11988054
#AbolishWhites #DecolonizeSTEM

YOU HAVE NOT BEEN PAYING ATTENTION

>>11988054
Fight leads to all of the following
- Ridiculed for taking it seriously.
- Ridiculed for "misunderstanding"
- Canceled for being a bigot, racist etc.

How can we metafight this strategy?

>>11988054
Worry not, all of this will magically disappear exactly 20 minutes after the results of the US Presidential election. (Unless Orange Man wins, in which case this will continue until 2024.)

1/2
Do scientists need to do that though? If a politician can not understand a basic numeral system and an operator he/she shouldn't be a politician, they should also understand precalc, statistics and probability.
The state of the western world is in such a decline right now, with my limited interest in politics Dominic Cummings seems to be the only person I know of that actually seems to be doing and trying to fix it in a genuine way, at least in the public eye.
Idk, the people who believe something like 2+2=5 are the same type of people who blindly believe in "scientists say" without even comprehending the scientific method because their favorite new source told them that science said something.
I think another problem is people wasting their time arguing with this, arguing with an adult that 2+2 is not 5.
Look for and focus on the root of the problem, attack it, help lost people. Yelling at or trying to fight a hurricane won't fix much, build something to withstand it instead.
What's the root of this? Not taking into account politics or a conspiracy of a group of people. Some things I can come up with about someone who thinks 2+2 is 5
-people do not understand what the concept of a number is
-people do not know about multiple numeral systems
-people do not comprehend what an operator is even if they're conscious of the idea of +
Imagine mark fishers capitalist realism theory and hyper apply it to everything, so many people can not think of anything else but contemporary view and things in time, existing within their own mind, and when media, smartphones and culture is an extension of the persons mind they don't think because they do not notice their actual surroundings.
You know the virus of people becoming more radical as time goes on? It's because their frame of reference expands to everything until they don't even check on a source.
>"oh a terrorist from race x blew up building y? Makes sense, they all suck"
meanwhile there was no building y.

>>11988054
They are now literally making 1984 a reality

>>11988519
If people believe anything scientists say, then scientists should come out and say that 2+2=/=5

Anyone want to give me a rundown of what this article is about so I don't have to look it up and give them clicks?

>>11988580
pandering to a twitter trend by stretching the definitions of math beyond its definitions and using social differences to justify it. basically not math falling under the guise of math.

>>11988587
I more or less gathered that part; I'm interested in what their argument is for why 2+2=5. Are they saying math is subjective? Are they saying 2+2=4 is white supremacism? Are they Thom Yorke? I don't get what all of this is even about.

>>11988519
2/2. you say non insane people, yet we are slaves to language and foundational mathematics which we argue on about. Are we slaves to the fairly newly coined term hyperstition too? Is it not foolishness to believe we are non insane when we exist in this framework of thinking.
People shit on the the Anti-oedipus chapters between the first and the last, yes they suck although funny at times but their point is a meta commentary on each persons insanity when they exist in a mind of symbols and forget the world as these symbols needed reference, and the world is the reference.
The only way I can feel any sense of calm and freedom of thought is choosing to experience myself as the world around me with a single pointer to a single mind. That way no "fields of anuses like a pack of wolves" come up in my thinking, and to let you really see that is half of this paragraph. Of course it's just not that simple and requires constant training.
>>11988564
I stated "scientists say" as a quote, do you think people care what James Watson says? No because "old man lost his mind, actual scientists tell you not to listen to him".
Things are in such decline and are really bad, but when you leave your mind and become the world with a pointer to a single mind you see the beauty that you've been missing out, the beauty that Spengler saw, the beauty that Aquinas saw, the beauty that Newton saw. It's all still here but because we've lost our central cultural western symbol which is infinity we lose our minds in a non intuitive dome because that is how the contemporary society is built now and you have to look outside the dome.
...
So I'll state the metaphor again, build a house that withstands the hurricane, show others the house or find another good house. Leave the abstract sand dome in your mind with a poisonous snake in it and try to reach the frame of infinite space where the world that we can perceive is. I will give you tools for the last statement, wait.

>>11988608
they're just making their own rules and claiming in them 2+2=5
2+2 people having kids together might yield 5 people in the end, shit like that.
the idea is that "2+2=4," which is "a definition in math, fails to consider other cultures' formalism of mathematics." when in reality they're just absolutely failing to understand what the rules of math are saying. it's not so much that 2+2=5, but rather that "2+2=4 is a white definition" and there are other potential ways to answer the question.

very few people are legitimately claiming this, but many others are jumping on the wagon to try and associate their names with the "movement"

>>11988365
Pics like this give me a certain element of pleasure, as wrong as it is. The /pol/tards bleat on and on about how whites are a superior race, how whites created civilization, etc. In all fairness, the Ancient Greeks and Romans certainly created the West, and all of humanity owes them a debt. But the whites of today are like cattle compared to the aurochs of the past. Look at them! No black, no Asian, no Arab or Aborigine is as stuffed with self-hate as the white person. No other race would debase themselves like this, in front of hundreds of people and in videos shared all over the internet. A little more than a century ago, whites ruled the world. Now they face a uncertain future in their own countries. And the best part, the cosmic joke in all of this is that they did this to themselves.

>>11988157
As someone who is and had to spend their entire fucking Saturday sitting through an AEC workshop so that I can assist a friend in the lab Monday (I would have turned him down if I knew it was going to require 8 hours of unpaid work), academia has not just been infiltrated by the crazies, it is very close to being run by them, my uni recently lobbied the anti discrimination board to allow discrimination against merit based hiring and promotion only in regard to white males, if a white male is the best candidate and the second best is a woman or person of colour guess who gets the job now?
I'm actually quitting over these disgusting fucking practices, looking for work elsewhere as we speak.

>>11988580
>2+ 2 = 5 if you change the definitions of "+" and "="
>People who were born male can be female if you change the definition of gender
>Nonwhites can't be racist if you change the definition of racist
>Women can be victims of rape if you change the definition of rape

>>11988630
Jew's aren't white anon.

>>11988612
so the most important tool I can give is practising every type of thought process. Let go of your primary frame of thinking, it will trap you,
Pattern thinking, visual thinking, thinking in language, thinking in self reference, thinking in sets, thinking in logic, thinking in terms of everything as a process, everything as a teleology. Whatever you hear, whatever you can come up with.
That way you will see the functionality of the mind as the mind is what it does and as you do this you begin to notice the world. And there is calmness and the closest thing to an idea of a "truth" that we know we are currently capable of reaching yet we do not know what it really is.

You guys are taking this too seriously.
It's just clickbait in its purest form.
Say something absolutely retarded, you get views, and thus mindshare, and thus money./
It makes the brainlets feel smart, because they can't differentiate between sophistry and philosophy.
It makes midwits feel smart because they are seeing the "average" person giving heed to this stupidity and lets them feel intelligent by comparison.
I'm not sure how intelligent people see this, I'm not particularly smart. I'm guessing they just ignore it.

>>11988663
Thanks. But you could have just said "open your mind and seek God [source and end of infinity]." It would have saved you a lot of space.

Ignore it and it will go away. Give it the time of day and people mistake it for credence like flat earth.

Move on.

>>11988630
yeah the baizuo are subhuman.

>>11988054
fuck off with US centric garbage go back to your disease 3rd world hell hole garbage fat monster

>>11988654
look huwite to me

>>11988705
I could have, but many people just relate God with religion and a bearded man and sort of dismiss or misunderstand the idea. You need to separate God from religion and show the metacognitive process to him.

>>11988564
>If people believe anything scientists say, then scientists should come out and say that 2+2=/=5
BLOCKS UR PATH

>>11988814
i have 2 apples, then i get 2 more apples. how many apples do i have?

>>11988814
This is literally people redefining words. When people say 2+2=4 they're typically not talking in base 10 you retard. No shit the sentence will have a different meaning if you change the definition of the words.

>>11988814
5 isn't in base-2.

>>11988823
can math explain what an apple is?

>>11988846
its quantifiable properties are explained with math. but you need more than math to explain what it is.

>>11988631
I hope you mention this in your resignation letter

Normies should just believe in mathematical platonism, just like they should believe that all wild mushrooms are poisonous.

>>11988860
Unfortunately I know I can't, in our current climate complaining about discrimination against white people is considered racist, it would likely exclude me from ever working in academia again.

>>11988069
It doesnt matter, you cant subvert maths.
No matter how may times you say 2+2=5, the correct answer is still 4. Even if every single person on earth was convinced that 2+2=5 and fanatically devoted to defending that belief, 2+2 would still equal 4, it is a universal and immutable truth

>>11988889
it's humanitiesfaggots seething at STEM as usual.

>>11988814
Let P be presentation and B be break:
He is assuming (P+B+P+B+P) + (P+B+P+B+P) = (P+B+P+B+P)+B+(P+B+P+B+P) causes of course there just *has* to be a break between the two sessions, right? Well, if there does have to be a break then his model is shit because it certainly doesn't imply one.

>>11988580
People are concocting situations in which a retard might conclude that, rather than them having made a shitty model of reality, 2+2=5 sometimes.

Pro-tip: If you and math disagree, math is always right and you are always wrong.

>>11988054
If there's any good reason to force mathematicians to learn logic as a foundation to math it's this terrible application of hegelian logic on math.

>>11988846
It's ontologically explained and that is pushed into logic and the quantifying value is put into math after logic.

>>11988886
collect evidence and when you leave go public. Become a pundit on fox.
Don't puss out. There is nowhere to run and we all know it.

>>11988365
imagine washing a nigger's feet while another uppity negress is screaming into your ear with a bullhorn saying shit like "fuck you whitey, all cops are bad, your life cant matter until black lives matter". all the while you are being filmed by hundreds of your peers and kneeling on hard pavement destroying and scarring over your delicate knee joint tissue.

>>11988054
Tbh it's a good conversation starter to explore math but it's just going to be political shit and rousseauian spirit of the people define everything crap

>>11988846
yes

>>11988983
>Pro-tip: If you and math disagree, math is always right and you are always wrong.
except that conflating math/logic and the real world is the ultimate prison, and the 2+2=5ers are in a way cutely recognizing this

Science people should be forced to take more philosophy. Your views are too narrow. Hume and Kant debates this centuries ago. It’s the difference between valid and sound. 2+2=5 can be valid given certain assumptions, but it can’t correspond to the world we live in because that’s just happens to be reality.

The larger point they’re making is that the scientific method is white supremicist (re: Smithsonian). They try and justify this with the Wittgenstein point that different people have different epistemic systems and they are all equally valid. In order to say one is better than another requires an epistemic system, begging the question. (We empiricist say “testing” is the answer, but that makes us racist now).

>>11989106
>i put a rooster and a hen togeter and i came back a year later and there were three of them:
1(hen) + 1(rooster) + 1(newborn chicken) = 3
That's 1+1+1 = 3 , not 1+1=3

>I left a fox and a hen together and later i came back and there was only one:
1(fox) + 1(hen) - 1(eaten hen) = 1
That's 1+1-1 = 1 , not 1+1=1

It appears "literal-minded people" just arbitrarily choose what they count and what they don't outside of any comprehensible pattern.
Unsurprising though, as data analysts and statisticians are quite familiar with manipulating numbers to distort the result.

>>11988621
Pretty based that they're arguing that the truth is the white viewpoint

>>11989222
Epistemology 101 will teach you that the whole "2+2=5" thing is trying to force a constructivist worldview on a positivist-derived axiom, which is incompatible. It's like trying to figure out if molten lead is hot enough to melt silver, and someone goes "you have to put those temperatures in context, those are both pretty cold compared to the sun's corona!" Nobody gives a fuck, that's completely irrelevant to literally everything.

>>11989253
The irony being if *all* epistemic systems are valid, then white supremacy ep systems are as valid as there’s .

>>11989225
No I agree but that's hegelian or dialectical logic. It's not formalized so it's not correct to say 1+1=3. That and also they accidentally came upon these examples. None of these ppl have studied hegel, logic or would make the connection

>>11989128
Evidence?, this isn't even a behind closed doors issue, this an out in the public eye progressive push to promote diversity within the university, everyone know's about it and it's "Good thing".

I'm also in Australia.

>>11989278
Exactly. All epistemic systems *are* valid, and have their uses. Trying to understand the experiences of cancer survivors requires someone to contextualize everything through their lives. Objective reality doesn't really mean very much in that case. But if you're trying to describe the pathology of their cancers, objective reality doesn't care what their feelings are or how difficult life with spouses became.

And if someone wants to believe that only knowledge gained from Western philosophy is valid, so be it.

>>11988631
What the fuck is an AEC workshop?

>>11988054
So what are the actual arguments here?

>>11989384
Tbh there are none except what are the axioms but the guy who tweeted it didn't do a gj explaining it or has no idea about it.

>>11988127
haha sciencefags btfo. Pure math research can be done alone in a room with just a pen and paper. Looking forward to watching all these bioshitters and chemfags get corrupted when they lose funding, while the rest of us keep it real.

Sounds Platonic, wish these non-STEMfags would build a plane off of 2+2=5 and fly it off a cliff.

>>11989453
>shitting on the applied sciences
why

Can't believe I wasted time reading that article. Apparently it boils down to twitteroids mixing (agreed upon) convention and "it can be whatever I want it to be".

>>11988519
Eren readily believed any research from reputable sources. Be more like Eren.

>>11989539
It's actually formalism or nominalism anon

>>11989591
Kant is so boring.

>>11989232
kek

>>11988054
If they're making a case against ZFC, I'm on board

>>11988054
>2+2=5
Anticapitalism? The capitalistic economy is an application of math and the west
is on top. Change math to change the economy? Someone should make an economic model that satisfies 2+2=5 to show that it fixes nothing. Make a Runescape version where real people can play. Show how ridiculous it is. Math is not the axiom that creates the economy and capitalism. Math is just a tool to deal with reality. Humans create the economy and capitalism by using math. It's humans they should rally against, not math.

>>11989684
Math belongs to everyone.

>>11989641
I am all in to replace classical set theory by intuitionistic type theory, but fugg, 2 + 2 still evaluates to 4.

>>11988054
>2+2=5
That's discrimination because 2+2 < 5. There is a reason why = is called equallty! Math is perfectly equal and the most feminist and woke social construct humankind has ever created.

it's just bait, retard

>>11989714
intuitionistic type theory is antisemitic. It was only invented as a counter-model against the "verjudete" set theory

>>11989606
That's Aristotelianism. Kant was an idealist

>>11988054
It's 5 if you add dark numbers

But what? It is just derived from the axioms, ((+((=((((, that always true, regardless of notation

>>11988127
>pic
How can I land a job in forum manipulation?

>>11990408
>But what? It is just derived from the axioms, ((+((=((((, that always true, regardless of notation

Don’t get all Euclideanplaining on my syntax explainings anon!
))+))[darkie ethereal realm concept]= )))))

>>11988054

To anyone who thinks 2 + 2 = 5, I have this simple proposition: I'll give them $2,000 followed by another $2,000 and if they give me $5,000 in return I'll even give them $100 for nothing. It's simple - tell them to put their money where their mouth is, put up or shut up.

>>11990952
I wander what could they answer

>>11988054
2+2=4 landed people on the moon.
2+2=5 is going to send people back into the caves.
Pick your poison.

>>11988054

>>11989931
heh, i hope you intended more than one pun in this.

>>11990952
If your giving that money to a stock broker then they could easily return to 5k for your 2k+2k+fee

>>11991052
Based and juche-pilled

>>11988069
Popular Mechanics is nothing more than a brand owned by Hearst. It is not a survey of popular opinion. It does not represent what the general public believes.

>>11988842
>When people say 2+2=4 they're typically not talking in base 10 you retard.
That doesn't even matter because in base 2, "10" is pronounced "two"

>>11990962
Some stuttering nonsense about you being obtuse and missing their point and how it doesn't count because money is made by white people and is thus inherently racist.

>>11988054
They’re now coming after the hard sciences (even fucking math) with their woketard ideology bullshit.
We were warned, laughed it off, and here we are.

>>11988157
shut the fuck up faggot and go back to tumblr with your mentally-ill friends

>>11988814
WHO SAID THERE’S A BREAK BETWEEN THE THE TWO HALVES? This is 2 + 1 + 2, not 2 + 2.
Fields medal my ass. What a fucking retard Tim has turned into.

>>11989177
There is literally no situation where 2 + 2 = 5 in the real world or otherwise, you stupid donkey.

>>11991383
>twitter profile of him wearing a mask
It's pretty clear he uses the site for garnering attention and validation. He's little more than a whore chasing the latest fashions trying to be popular.

>>11988842
>This is literally people redefining words
Exactly as described (among other things) by Thucydides in this text about the human condition and political warefare during the Corcyrean civil war:
http://www.wright.edu/~christopher.oldstone-moore/Thucydides.htm
It's a good read (and short) if you want to understand exactly what is going on in the United States at the moment as well as human behaviour during a civil war.

>>11988889
>looks at current gender politics

>>11989157
Imagine

>>11991070
>If your giving that money to a stock broker then they could easily return to 5k for your 2k+2k+fee

...after 20 years, else not 'easily' at all, and quite possibly lose the lot.

I would assume any real arrangement would involve an escrow account.

>>11990962

I don't know but it's worth trying. Their idiotic belief system is like a religion so you should press the argument that they must be lacking faith - see if you can push them into it.

>>11988382
Based and radiohead pilled.

>>11988058
Thats exactly what everyone said before Communism exterminated hundreds of millions of Europeans.

>>11990952
Based and Dutchbook-pilled

>>11988054
Get leftards out of Academics and Science, leftist are absolute retards and ruin everything they touch which why every one of them always looks weirdly ugly and deformed its a warning of their evil. pic related is what you get with leftist loons.

Think outside the box and you people are retarded, god a tread died for this.

>Think outside the box and you people are retarded, god a tread died for this.

>>11991819
>Capitalism cares

>>11991843
?

>>11991836
>To show equality and respect for Muslim women we'll...
>HAVE FUCKING DAVE THE BARBARIAN PUBLICLY BEAT THEM THE FUCK DOWN

With this and the other SJWs saying that white people invented everything... are SJWs just /pol/ with a journalism degree? What the fuck?

>>11988630
>unhinged schizo delusions
Looks who language you are speaking and whose inventions you are using. White People are in your everyday life because of their altruism which shows they are still stronger than you, the biggest difference is White People can create a new empire while the rest of the world is in turmoil and destruction again. The real cosmic joke is most of the world will always be black and brown an living in their own personal hell their only escape is living among White People which won't even be a option soon. Most people starving in the world are asians and are enslaved making funkopops.
If you knew anything about history you would realize you are in the calm before the storm expect the non-white world to be in utter destruction and on fire, while White People are comfy in their balkanized states. You are going to kill yourself in these coming years it will be your only escape from the hell you rightfully deserve and your only positive memories will be when White People were being kind.

>>11990962
Ackshually 2 plus 2 equals 5 because math is racist

>>11991836
>handball
do australians really??

>>11991843
I'd rather not be murdered by a system totally apathetic to my wellbeing than be murdered by a system that swears it cares.

>>11991917
Fortunately you'll be murdered by both.

>>11992135
Probably not.

>>11991881
See
>>11988365
That's your "superior race."

>>11988631
>(I would have turned him down if I knew it was going to require 8 hours of unpaid work)
I can tell you don't work in academia, since its literally 80% unpaid work

Someone should make a Runescape version where 2+2=5 to demonstrate how useless it is

>>11992135
Commies are literally delusional.

>>11992303
It literally isn’t unless you’re a retard.
Hmm...

>>11988080
your hubris won't allow you to see the path we're on until you're standing in front of the mass grave with a gun in your back. Interviewing anybody who lived through a collapse or revolution and they all mention how obvious it seemed in hindsight. Does 2 + 2 = 5 really not have you worried in the slightest?

>>11990952
In that case 2 + 2 = 0

>>11988197
You are a tankie? Seems like you prefer red boots over normal ones.

>>11988054
i know you science fags are mainstream media useful idiots and mostly NPCs that are brainwashed by television shows and propaganda, but they are also lying about Donald Trump and have been for just about 4 years now.

Pic related, its before 4 years ago, before his black girlfriend, before CNN convinced you he is hitler

>>11991836
This was easily the second greatest sporting play we as a nation have ever made, second only to old m8 Stevo's speed skating win back in '02

>>11991453
I fail to see how gender politics is in any way related to, or capable of affecting, the laws of mathematics

>>11993235
>2017 was over 4 years ago
Also this was two days after he called the white supremacists very fine people, after his handlers had time to write something non-racist for him to say.

>>11989931
underrated

>>11988054
Its a weapon to detroy you

>>11993381
I'm pretty sure it's in reference to the picture itself, which is clearly a much younger Trump, but yes it isn't very clear.

>>11988054

>I understand that math bros don't want to be bothered by stupid political bullshit. But those stupid squabbles are encroaching on science and math. Please. non insane people have to come out and fight this.

this is some incel bs

>>11993304
The issue is people's lunacy not mathematics you fucking retard. Stop playing dumb.

>>11994863
>*reddit spacing*
>this is some incel bs

>>11993381
the (((media))) has presented it in the way you describe. and yet the precise transcript of his remarks is as follows:
>you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides.
so what were the sides? from a partisan standpoint you can paint any picture you like, so let's look at it from the center. you had people trying to remove the statue, who also had some "very bad" jewish communists supporting them; and you had people defending the statue, who also had some "very bad" white supremacists supporting them. and this is the picture that President Trump described

it is interesting that you talk about handlers when your own perceptions are the product of such blatant and clumsy propaganda. do you have any opinions at all of your own?

>>11988054
That's why you shouldn't cut drugs, you end up with math like this...

2 doses
2 doses

In one bag with 1 dose of bullshit sold like 5 doses.

It's normal.

Just came to this thread after my Calc III class and damn, am I lucky to have picked a good major.

>>11989931
Based physicists dropping out of harvard to save the math game.

I for one welcome these trends where stupid people distinguish themselves as such, much less effort wasted attempting to speak with brainlets

>>11988054
>Please. non insane people have to come out and fight this.
no we don't. let retards be retarded all they want. I have more important things to do in my life than talk to lunatics about pointless things like huwhite supremacy when they themselves know nothing about math, they just want attention

>>11988058
The worst thing you can do with an organized leftist clique is ignore them.

>>11989550
kek

>>11988445
You think this is going to stop? lol, it's only just beginning.

>>11992150
>indoctrinaded self hating mutts
>the entire white race
Ask me how I know you are a woman or a nigger?

Why would anyone give a shit about a fucking column? Those have always been used by retarded people to spout their opinions and takes on issues.

>>11988054
We warned you about that movie with dumb people but you keep swinging to the left.
This is worst than nazi science lmao

>>11996379
SLIPPERRY
SLOPE

>>11988069
>We can't say anymore that this is just limited to crazy people talking.
You just don't get it, do you? You're looking at it all wrong. It's not that it's just crazy people saying, it's that a greater number of people are becoming crazy. Crazy is becoming the average and soon to be the majority. There is a worldwide psychological destabilization occurring.

>>11988058
This. Its entirely socio-politcal and utterly unrelated to maths.

>>11988692
>It's just clickbait in its purest form.

Not at all - they are serious about dismantling STEM a project started over 25 years ago.

>>11993381
>after he called the white supremacists very fine people
Quit lying baka

>>11996379
Yeah who gives a shit about Popular Mechanics backing this lunacy
Clearly nothing’s happening at all

>>11996658
>socio-politcal matters don’t affect academia!

>>11988054
As a research mathematician, I found the article interesting. Carr is trying to point out subtler points about the fact a binary operation doesnt have to arise from the principle of counting, I.e., the natural numbers. I like the idea because it makes one think, what is a number, what constitutes an algebraic structure, and approaching the concept from an angle a layman might appreciate. As journalists do, the popular mechanics journalist is bending the point a little bit with its headline and now you guys are getting your panties in a bunch over it, which is hilarious, but I like the article. Compare that to \sci which offers next to no value.

>>11998334
Gee, finally a respectable post ITT. I wonder how many of the people seething at the article know the first thing about Peano Arithmetic.
For fuck's sake, we've had people denying climate science and epidemiology for years, but no, what's really killing science is an article trying to make people think about the nature of numbers.

>>11998014
Its not lunacy. It's just clickbait. The article is shit, but pretty "understandable".

>>11998334
>>11998360
t. category theory tranny

>>11988054
Did... did they just call the use of integers fucking colonial?

>>11988157
I tried to argue that abuse is just as serious a problem when men are faced with it as when women are, and just as serious when perpetrated by men as when perpetrated by women, in a safeguarding course at medical school. The lecturer's response was
>Men are more commonly abusers and women are more commonly abused, plus men don't get abused as badly and women don't abuse as badly, and abuse is patriarchal
>So you're wrong, we have to recognise gender and how abuse is worse when coming from a man or impacting a woman than the other way around
The rest of the class seemed to agree. These people are future doctors responsible for noticing and reporting health (physical and mental) and safety concerns.

>>11994886
You think we care about people, but we really only care about math.

>>11988846
set theory doesn't require explanation. it is "apple". it can have numeracy (Unlike infinities or abstract concepts like "red").

>>11998690
>it can have numeracy (Unlike infinities)

It has actually too much of it. Tell me, anon, you say that [math]2 + 2 = 4[/math] but does [math]2^{\aleph_0} = \aleph_1[/math]?

>>11988054
Why fight it?
A better course of action would be to figure out how to take advantage of the newest crop of indoctrinated retards.

>>11988054
>You fuckers need to come out and fight this
done

>>11988889
You have people with dicks claiming to be women. You have no idea what dogmas can be asserted as reality.

>>11999594
It doesn't matter what dogma is asserted as reality, mathematics is an immutable and universal concept. If every human being on earth straight up fucking died tomorrow, 2+2 would still equal 4

>>11999713
not him but you see how it would be a major issue if this dogma was to take hold.

>>11988054
It fights itself. Can't wait until some woke engineer tries to build a bridge with this nu-math and end up killing hundreds of people in the process.

Many years ago, George Orwell wrote about the 2+2=5 reality in his very famous-albeit rarely read-book "1984". A reality shaped around self-imposed lies and cultural post-conceptions, because when the all-seeing hand of the powerful get a grip on your senses, everything turns into a mad house.
The news are just selling the old neo-truths, they've been pushing lies for green. Whoever comes up with the most ludicrous ideas with just enough logic put into it to be sold for your garden-variety easy-smiling citizen gets their piece of the cake while the others stand aside while cooking their vile spells.
Lies are the most common of commodities: comforting lies, cheap lies, good lies, lies lies lies, it doesn't matter, our reality's been built upon the lies of people who have perpetuated their own truths. After all, everyone likes feeling smart, clever, above everyone else, so do I, of course but so does everybody reading this, though it's a lie many many many people convinced themselves of. Everyone thinks they're special, that they are different, many would even say they own their own fate.
2+2=5 is the greatest expression of all of that, it's the hip new truth everyone wants, the Jesus Christ of atheist.

>>11999725
I really don't, I completely fail to see how a bunch of people being really bad at maths will achieve anything except looking stupid.

>>11999828
you really don't see the danger of being surrounded by retarded fanatics?

>>11999837
m

>>11998334
>>11998360
>dude a binary operation doesn't have to be addition, lmao!
No shit retard. That has nothing to do with 2 + 2 = 5.
Kill yourself.

>>11998360
>I wonder how many of the people seething at the article know the first thing about Peano Arithmetic.
PA proves 2 + 2 = 4 you absolute retard.

>>11998334
Is there not a better example which is a not a blatantly retarded falsehood?

If there is really no better example in all of mathematics, perhaps it's just nonsense

>>11988054
>In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?

I'm all fine with people thinking 2 + 2 = 5. I can borrow money from these people and pay them back with 2 dollar bills until I make bank.

>>11998334
>a binary operation doesnt have to arise from the principle of counting, I.e., the natural numbers
how does that make 2 + 2 = 5 "right"? do you have brain damage or something?

>>11998334
As a wokestudies major*

>>11999885
That's not the point. There are infinitely many models of PA

>>11999904
>There are infinitely many models of PA
tard
https://mathworld.wolfram.com/PeanosAxioms.html

>>11999904
And they all satisfy 2 + 2 = 4 you absolute FUCKING IDIOT THERE'S NO MODEL WHERE 2 + 2 = 5 GET THAT IN YOUR HEAD YOU ABSOLUTE RETARD.

>>11999837
So long as I don't have to cross any bridges they build, no.
It's just more money for me when they inevitably fuck something up and need to hire a real engineer to clean up their mess.

>>11998360
>>11999904
an idiotic non-sequitur like this shows you have no idea what you're talking about

>>11999913
You don't know what a model is.
>>11999916
>>11999923
Calm the fuck down bobby. It's just something to make you think about axiomatization and how there is nothing special about the natural numbers.

>>11999962
>You don't know what a model is.
no, you're just a tard.

>>11999964
Then why did you link me a page of Peano axioms?

>>11999968
are you really that stupid? what is the arithmetic derived from?

>>11999975
???
I'm asking you why you posted a page with Peano axioms in response to the claim "there are infinitely many models of PA"

>>11998334
>Carr is trying to point out subtler points about the fact a binary operation doesnt have to arise from the principle of counting, I.e., the natural numbers.

>>11999977
in none of them do you get 2+2=5.

>>11998334
>Carr is trying to point out subtler points about the fact a binary operation doesnt have to arise from the principle of counting, I.e., the natural numbers.
lol nope. even taking his retarded example with chickens those are still natural counted numbers. he is just being a retard and omitting the function with reproduction and saying put 1 chicken and 1 rooster together you get 3.

>>11999981
What does linking the page of Peano axioms have to do with that fact?

>>11999988
to jog your memory away from all the fart you've been sniffing.

>>11988054
2+2=5

>>11999999
wrong

>>11999997
No, I think you just discovered PA on Google when I mentioned it and you've been caught red handed not knowing much about number theory, otherwise you would have known what "model" meant. Which really illustrates my original point.

>>11999999
wasted digits

>>12000006
look in the chess thread to see wasted digits

>>12000005
oh pls. i work with models all the time. you said models of pa. there are 5 axioms that is bound to. not infinitely many where you get 2+2=5 which was the bs you were doing mental gymnastics for.

>>11999968
>>11999977
>>11999988
>>12000005
because the Peano axioms PROVE that 2 + 2 = 4 you dumb motherfucker

>>11999962
>Calm the fuck down bobby. It's just something to make you think about axiomatization and how there is nothing special about the natural numbers.

>>11999962
>there is nothing special about the natural numbers
what did he mean by this

>>11999962
>It's just something to make you think about axiomatization and how there is nothing special about the natural numbers.
funny because the entire time his examples were restricted to integers >0. maybe instead of defending bs just because it's written in a magazine you like you admit it's bs.

>>12000019
A model isn't an axiom...
>>12000026
Axioms aren't a God-given table of law mate, calm your tits.
>>12000043
>>12000034
>>12000028
Yes, there is nothing special about natural numbers. Unless you've somehow derived PA from basic set theory, you can't prove the contrary.

>>12000048
>A model isn't an axiom...
no shit, you're just being deliberately dense now. the point was to show you that you cannot get your stupid fart sniffing points across with this set of axioms, contrary to the moronic point you were trying to make.

>>12000048
>Yes, there is nothing special about natural numbers. Unless you've somehow derived PA from basic set theory, you can't prove the contrary.
i see you just lack reading comprehension. i can see now why your imagined point about carr was a thing, you just can't read properly.

>>12000055
The point was there is nothing unique about the natural numbers. Being "useful" or "the most commonly used" isn't a mathematical property.

>>12000060
ok, but that isn't the argument carr was getting at. he was blabbering on about how you can put a chicken and a rooster together and get 3. and those are natural numbers with his retarded shit arithmetic.

>>11998360
>>11999904
>>11999962
>>12000048
Literally what the fuck are you babbling about? How does any of this show 2 + 2 = 5?

>>12000063
Operators are just as arbitrary as number theory axioms.
Show me how OP wouldn't have been one of those tards yelling "nooooo you can't have i as a square root of -1, that's wrong there is no real number that satisfies that"

>>11999977
???
I'm asking you why you posted the statement "There are infinitely many models of PA" in a discussion about 2 + 2 = 5.

>>12000080
To illustrate that natural numbers occupy no special place.

>>12000078
>Operators are just as arbitrary as number theory axioms.
sure but they are defined. the addition operator isn't a mangled mess where 1+1=3.
>Show me how OP wouldn't have been one of those tards yelling "nooooo you can't have i as a square root of -1, that's wrong there is no real number that satisfies that"
lol, nope. imaginary numbers is not like saying 2+2=5. saying that is retarded, fren. idk why you can't just admit carr is a retard?

>>12000082
an argument carr isn't making. why give him credit when it's not due? he is a moron, plain and simple.

>>12000082
Again, assuming that's true, how does that show 2 + 2 = 5? Don't dodge the question again.

>>12000078
>Show me how OP wouldn't have been one of those tards yelling "nooooo you can't have i as a square root of -1, that's wrong there is no real number that satisfies that"
Show me how you aren't a retard because your posts ITT sure seem to tell otherwise.

>>12000085
Why is it a different situation from the imaginary numbers?
Exactly what would the mess and how tangled would it be? Which properties can we keep on addition operator such that 2+2=5
Carr gave an example of how such an arithmetic could be useful. Then people yelled at him by saying "nooooo you should use fractions instead of a different addition operator". When an aeronautics engineer uses a wonky non-euclidian geometry to make his calculations simpler, you could also say "noooo you have to use euclidian geometry, you can still make the same calculation provided you add some corrections". This is the exact same case.
Advanced in math very often come from people who ask "ah but what if I break that rule, what happens then? What if I have a square root of -1, what if I have an oracle for NP problems". Yeah sure, some retards can always come and tell that you're breaking the True Rules of Mathematics (despite no such thing existing) but they aren't contributing shit. It's perfectly obvious to anyone that 2+2 isn't 5 under common arithmetic.

>>12000114
>Carr gave an example of how such an arithmetic could be useful.
No he didn't.

>>12000127
He did, saying you can do it differently doesn't make it not useful

>>12000114
>When an aeronautics engineer uses a wonky non-euclidian geometry to make his calculations simpler
What the fuck are you talking about, retard? If you're talking about GR then that's a matter of necessity, not convenience.
There is no situation where 2 + 2 = 5 "makes calculations simpler".

>>12000114
>Why is it a different situation from the imaginary numbers?
2+2=4, isn't restricted to just the set of natural numbers.

>Exactly what would the mess and how tangled would it be?
1+1=3
2+2=5
what is 1+2=? is that 4? so is this new operator add one more? call it +_hat?

>Carr gave an example of how such an arithmetic could be useful.
except it's really not. chickens lay more than 1 egg. and what if the hen or rooster is infertile?

>Then people yelled at him by saying "nooooo you should use fractions instead of a different addition operator".
they were right to yell at him because he should've made a function for chicken count with reproduction.
f(x,y) = x + y + 1, in his case. not said "i'm gonna fuck up the addition operator and say 1=1=3".

>Advanced in math very often come from people who ask "ah but what if I break that rule, what happens then? What if I have a square root of -1, what if I have an oracle for NP problems".
and how many advances came from breaking the addition operator instead of making a new operator for that case or you know just making a function? sqrt(-1) was just an extension to a new set of numbers. if the point you're making is we should think about how flexible math is that's fine and dandy. but that isn't so much as breaking the rules but extending them.

>>12000135
What's this example you claim exists where 2 + 2 = 5 is "useful"?

>>12000114
>>12000135
Anon, I don't know how to put this to you. The value of a mathematical expression doesn't change with time.

1 + 1 equals 2
2 is not equal to 3.
Therefore, 1 + 1 is not equal to 3.

Do you understand that? Are you capable of understand that? What kind of mental gymnastics will you reply with next?

>>12000136
No m not talking about GR, I'm talking about f.e. using a spherical geometry

>>12000114
>>12000135
It's not useful. Here's why:

Suppose you have 2 = 1 + 1 chickens today.
Then (according to Carr) you have

1 + 1 chickens today
= 3 chickens today
= 1 + (1 + 1) chickens today
= 1 + 3 chickens today
= 1 + 1 + (1 + 1) chickens today
= 1 + 1 + 3 chickens today
= 1 + 1 + 1 + (1 + 1) chickens today
= 1 + 1 + 1 + 3 chickens today
= 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + (1 + 1) chickens today
= 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 3 chickens today
= 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + (1 + 1) chickens today
= 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 3 chickens today
= 8 chickens today

So you have 8 chickens today. This is not useful. In fact, it is nonsense. Do I need to explain why?

>>12000142
>2+2=4, isn't restricted to just the set of natural numbers.
and? This might surprise you, but when Cardan and Euler came up with the imaginaries, they didn't do that proper and clean definition of number sets so your sophomore math teacher wouldn't get his panties in a bunch. They threw a brick in the pond and looked at the consequences.
>what is 1+2=? is that 4?
Well? How would you make it so you can keep as many "nice" properties for classic addition as you can?
>except it's really not. chickens lay more than 1 egg. and what if the hen or rooster is infertile?
I'm thinking more of the timetable thing.
>and how many advances came from breaking the addition operator
Obviously it's a simple example for the general public. It's pretty clear he's not actually claiming to come up with a revolution in math but rather illustrate a point about breaking "rules".

>>12000148
And here's the dude who hasn't a single clue what were talking about. Tell me, wise guy, what are The True Rules of Mathematics? Can you lay them down for me?

>>12000163
>3=1+(1+1)
Obviously not with this operator

>>12000167
> It's pretty clear he's not actually claiming to come up with a revolution in math but rather illustrate a point about breaking "rules".
and he fell on his face doing it and instead of you admitting that he is a retard you're here defending him. look if he was pointing out the argument you're making about imaginary numbers that would've been something, but he's not. don't attribute to him your insights for his stupidity. he doesn't deserve that. he's just hijacking the smart point about rule breaking/flexibility/what have you to obfuscate from the fact that he's a retard.

>>12000168
3
= 1 + 2
= 1 + (1 + 1)
By the transitivity of equality, 3 = 1 + (1 + 1).

In terms of chickens, if you have 1 chicken, and add another chicken, and add another chicken, you have 3 chickens.

Do you understand that?

>>12000178
3=1+2
Obviously not with this operator

>>12000142
>instead of making a new operator
There are plenty of fields like noncommutative geometry where people don't bother making new symbols, I don't see you guys yelling about it.

>>12000183
If you have 2 chickens, and add 1 more chicken, you have 3 chickens.

Do you understand that?

>>12000187
it's not about symbols. they define their operators. so how does chicken addition work?
we know 1+1=3.
what is 1+2?
what is 3+3?

>>12000189
I don't know, how would you define it to keep as many nice properties of addition as you can?
>>12000188
So you do believe Peano Arithmetic to be universally true, beyond our axiomatic systems?

>>12000198
>I don't know, how would you define it to keep as many nice properties of addition as you can?
so how is chicken addition a useful operator? so far we have 1+1=3 and that's it. why can't you just admit carr is a tard? he had one point but fucked it up royally when explaining it. like a broken clock.

>>12000208
Not really, you could have taken it as an exercise of how you could define an operator such that 2+2=5 and keep as many usual properties as you can. But you don't have to.
>and he fell on his face doing it
But he didn't? Half the ragers ITT go "durr it's an obvious point not worth saying" and half go "durrr it's wrong". You can't have it both ways.
In fact, judging by this thread, he made an excellent job of getting the uneducated plebs riled up. The kind of moron who thinks the elementary plebe goop they learned in middle school is The Immutable Rules of The One Mathematic. They're probably computer engineers too.

>>11999904
>>12000005
>>12000080
>>12000082
>There are infinitely many models of PA
and they all satisfy 2 + 2 = 4.

>>12000198
Don’t dodge the question. Don’t deflect. Don’t change the topic.

If you have 2 chickens, and add 1 more chicken, you have 3 chickens.

Do you understand that?

>>12000214
2+2=4

>>12000214
>you could have taken it as an exercise of how you could define an operator such that 2+2=5
i did, it's called +_hat.
>But he didn't?
yes he did. then you came to his rescue with an actually valid point about rule breaking and are now attributing it to him. giving him credit for something he didn't do.
>Half the ragers ITT go "durr it's an obvious point not worth saying" and half go "durrr it's wrong". You can't have it both ways.
except he is a retard who said one correct thing to obfuscate his retardation. these aren't mutually exclusive. broken analog clocks are right twice a day but they are still broken.
>In fact, judging by this thread, he made an excellent job of getting the uneducated plebs riled up.
oy vey.

>>12000219
Depends on your definition of "add" obviously you tard. Don't deflect the question, do you believe in the absolute truth of Peano arithmetic?

>>11988054
Dude, you realize we already lost right? Now is the time to make sure you've backed up data in static resistance cases and maybe stockpiled a few tactical nukes. You gotta be prepared for damage control now, cause the disaster is already happening.

>>12000214
It’s an obviously true point (“hurrrr if we completely change the meaning of words we can turn this obviously false statement into a true one”) if interpreted one way, and it’s an obviously false point if interpreted the other way. Either way it’s a useless and stupid comment to make. That’s a completely consistent opinion to have on his stupid comment.

>>12000227
>Depends on your definition of "add" obviously you tard.
Which definition did you have in mind that differs from the standard one?

>>12000236
Then why would you be a tard an interpret it the other way?
How is that different from someone asking "guys what if 2+2=0" and coming up with ring theory?

>>12000238
2+2=0 is not how you come up with ring theory you absolute and total moron

Do you pretend to have been inside Dedekind's mind? I know that's how I did it as a kid.
Or do you not understand the difference between "coming up with something" and "axiomatizing it"

>>12000238
>Then why would you be a tard an interpret it the other way?
I said both interpretations lead to the conclusion that his comment is idiotic. Do you have trouble with reading comprehension? I recommend starting off with something more appropriate to your reading level. Maybe The Cat in the Hat or something.

>>12000238
>How is that different from someone asking "guys what if 2+2=0" and coming up with ring theory?
jfc you really do have brain damage

>>12000238
>"guys what if 2+2=0" and coming up with ring theory
Fucking hell anon stop embarrassing yourself for real.

>>12000246
If it's true and anger psychorigid engineer plebs, it's not idiotic nor a waste of time.

>>12000238
t. doesn't know what ring theory is

>>12000252
>If we change the meaning of words we can change the meaning of a sentence
Thanks for the insight Einstein

>>12000248
>>12000251
>>12000258
What's the matter plebs? That's how you come up with something. You start wondering about a simple group and then you notice some patterns and extend the theory.
Imagine having the galls to claim "nooooooo, you can only come up with mathematical objects one way! There's only one way to have intuition."
Go to bed engineers

>>12000268
>you start wondering if 2+2=5
yeah if you have brain damage maybe

>>12000264
Yes? Nothing wrong with it if lets you come up with something because it makes you think about an object differently.
Just like Feynman said, a good physicists know several versions of his physics theory. They all have the same mathematical consequences, but they make you think about the physics differently.

>>12000275
>They all have the same mathematical consequences
5?

>>12000268
>You start wondering about a simple group and then you notice some patterns and extend the theory.
Anon, there is no consistent extension of PA, or even Robinson arithmetic, or even Presburger arithmetic, where 2 + 2 = 5, because its negation is a *theorem*.

Who cares? It's not like any of this will have any real application outside of retards arguing about trivial shit on the internet.

>>12000275
>They all have the same mathematical consequences
Yeah like 2+2=4

>>11988054
Don't be a maths bigot bro. Eryone nos math be raycis

>>12000280
>>11998018

>>12000275
>if lets you come up with something because it makes you think about an object differently.
>if lets you come up with something
>if lets you come up with something

>>12000277
Why are you okay with someone claiming 2+2=0 in Z/4Z, but 2+2=5 immediately puts your panties in a bunch?
>b.....bbbb....but it's useless
There were 3 centuries between the invention of imaginary numbers and "useful" applications. The point is if you think you can measure the usefulness of a theory at the glance of an eye you're nothing but a philistine.

>>12000278
Cool, who said we were restricted to PA extensions?

>>12000287
The correct statement is the statement about cosets [math](4 \mathbb{Z} + 2) + (4 \mathbb{Z} + 2) = 4\mathbb{Z} + 0)[/math], not 2 + 2 = 0.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coset#Integers..

>>12000290
So what’s your theory?

>>12000300
Yeah, and also you should always put a subscript with your integers to know whether your talking about elements of the natural numbers, or their image in the reals, but really nobody now that pedantic.
Also, notice how the + in that case is different from the addition in the naturals and nobody has a shitfit about it.

>>12000303
I don't know, n +_[Carr] m = n +_[Peano] m +_[Peano] + 1

>>12000307
So you’re claiming Carr is talking about [math]\mathbb{Z}/1\mathbb{Z}[\math], the trivial group? That’s it?

>>12000313
So under your so-called Carr “addition”, 0 = 1, correct?

>>12000318
Why not?
>>12000314
He can be talking about a lot of things, which is the point. And I know you're gonna say "it's perfectly trivial", but I assure you it's not, it's really not. Even ITT right now there is a guy pestering me who thinks Peano arithmetic is a universal truth. And that's fine, it's a philosophical position that many have held, but those morons are not even aware that it's a minority position among logicians, and that they can't by any means prove it.
I assure you the same idiots shedding crocodile tears about the death of science were the absolute same cretins arguing against the use of imaginary numbers (BEFORE they were properly defined) because "obviously they can't exist"

>>12000318
No. 0 is not equal to 0+0

>>12000318
...otherwise, why use the symbol + if 0 “+” 0 = 0 is false, whereas this is always the case when mathematicians call an operation “addition”?
Be it addition in the naturals, rationals, reals, complex numbers, cardinals, ordinals, surreals, etc.
When the term “addition” is used, it satisfies 0 + 0 = 0. If your operation does not satisfy such a simple and fundamental property, why call it “addition”? In what way could it possibly be thought of as addition?

>>12000329
See >>12000331

>>12000327
>ITT right now there is a guy pestering me who thinks Peano arithmetic is a universal truth
You just made that up. You’re a liar. Why should anyone take you seriously?

>>12000327
>Peano arithmetic is a universal truth
What do you mean by “is a universal truth”? Are you saying adding 1 chickens to 2 chickens does not yield 3 chickens?

>>12000327
>He can be talking about a lot of things, which is the point.
yet he picked some contrived example about chickens instead of something valid. for some reason you just can't face it that you'r defending a retard.
>I assure you the same idiots shedding crocodile tears about the death of science were the absolute same cretins arguing against the use of imaginary numbers (BEFORE they were properly defined) because "obviously they can't exist"
it doesn't work like that. it was explained to you before that equating 2+2=5 to the set of imaginary numbers is bs.

>>12000327
how do imaginary numbers show 2 + 2 = 5 or anything like that? why do you keep bringing up imaginary numbers? did you just learn about them or something?

>>12000334
I did not. The guy talking about chicken is trying to make a statement about reality, which is why he's using real world's examples.
>>12000331
Well it just means it does not have a neutral element. But iirc you don't need your internal composition group to have a neutral element to define an Abelian group

>>12000343
>The guy talking about chicken is trying to make a statement about reality
and failing miserably. bet yet you can't seem to admit that.

>>12000339
You stated it, you haven't explained it.
>>12000341
>reading comprehension
>>12000346
I'm obviously talking about the anon ITT, I thought that would be obvious

>>11988157
>5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as 'attack the messenger' ploy. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'schizos', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', '/pol/', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy theorist', 'radicals', 'religious fanatics', 'racists', 'sexual deviants' and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoiding dealing with issues.
Straight out of the Subversives handbook. 2+2=5 is obvious bullshit, but it is springing from the same source that brings you the people who want to ban George Orwell's 1984, tear down statues and burn books, turn young boys into young girls with hormone replacement and surgery and push continuous anit-White, anti-Christian and anti-Western agendas, all while playing the victim to manipulate you emotionally.

>The guy talking about chicken is trying to make a statement about reality
and failing miserably. but yet you can't seem to admit that. for some strange reason you want to die on this hill.

>>12000327
>but those morons are not even aware that it's a minority position among logicians
Actually, if you're referring to Platonism (which no one brought up, so I'm not sure why you're so fixated on it), more logicians learn towards Platonism (52.2%) than nominalism (28.3%).
https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl?affil=Target+faculty&areas0=37&areas_max=1&grain=coarse

>>12000343
Whether PA holds for chickens or not does not impinge upon whether "Peano arithmetic is a universal truth", whatever that means.
In other words, stop lying.

>>12000343
using real-world examples of addition means "Peano arithmetic is a universal truth"?

>>12000350
>You stated it, you haven't explained it.
2+2=5 is obvious nonsense. where is the extra 1 coming from? it seems like an omission of addition more than anything. meanwhile in many cases an equation will work out to include an i. all imaginary numbers are was saying what if we allowed that and it worked. nowhere does 2+2=5 work.

>>12000343
Anon... Every group has a neutral element. By definition.

>>12000354
Intredasting.
>>12000356
Uh yes it does. When someone keeps going "IF I HAVE A CHICKEN AND ANOTHER CHICKEN I HAVE TWO CHICKENS AND THAT'S THAT, CHECKMATE ATHIEST" , he's very clearly trying to make a point (with his own limited means) about the objective truth of standard arithmetic and I do not see any other way to interpret it.

>>12000343
>The guy talking about chicken is trying to make a statement about reality
and failing miserably. but yet you can't seem to admit that. for some strange reason you want to die on this hill.

>>12000363
Woops, right

>>12000364
Yikes. No it doesn't.
But to be clear, you don't think 1 chicken + 2 chickens = 3 chickens, correct?

>>12000364
>with his own limited means
but kareem is some big brained genius? if kareem was so smart why didn't he point out imaginary numbers? why not just admit that he is brainlet who fell flat on his face?

>>12000364
so if someone says adding 2 chickens and 2 chickens yields 4 chickens, they're claiming "Peano arithmetic is a universal truth"? how so?

>>11988823
Infinite apples since each of those apples has seeds that can produce countless more apples.

>>12000364
cringe

>>12000361
That's an extraordinarily ad hoc distinction you're drawing there. You think the original detractors of imaginary numbers would have been swayed by your argument?
>>12000370
I already explained several times why imaginary numbers are relevant. If you're not ready to relax your restrictions for the sake of intuition you're going nowhere.
>>12000368
Still trying to make a statement about unqualified truth.

>>12000377
so there are infinite apples on earth right now?

Literally never heard about this bullshit outside of twitter and this board

>>12000380
>That's an extraordinarily ad hoc distinction you're drawing there.
what that we can see right off the bat that 2+2=5 is bs? c'mon.
>You think the original detractors of imaginary numbers would have been swayed by your argument?
fuck'em they had no argument. on the other hand we know 2+2=5 is horseshit.
>I already explained several times why imaginary numbers are relevant. If you're not ready to relax your restrictions for the sake of intuition you're going nowhere.
i'm not arguing that they aren't. read what i actually wrote.

>>12000377
>>12000383
there are 0 apples, bigots. i ate them all.

>>12000380
>Still trying to make a statement about unqualified truth.
I don't understand. You're saying there's no such thing as unqualified truth? That 2 chickens + 2 chickens does not have a correct answer? Is that itself an unqualified truth?

>>12000389
ALL NUMBERS ARE EQUAL

>>12000393
that's right. beauty at any size.

>>12000390
>You're saying there's no such thing as unqualified truth?
There is in fact no such thing as unqualified truth in math and logic.
By the way, thanks for being a perfect illustration of my point that Carr statement isn't trivial for everyone. You just validated my entire discussion.
>>12000388
You really don't see a parallel between people saying "redefining addition is bad, just use fractions" and people saying "negative numbers? What's that bullshit, you can't have minus chicken. Yes you can owe chickens to someone but in that case say 'I owe 3 chicken' and not 'I have -3 chicken' " ?

>>12000380
2+2=5 contradicts 0!=1
the same cannot be said for imaginary numbers

>>12000400
>thanks for being a perfect illustration of my point that Carr statement isn't trivial for everyone. You just validated my entire discussion.
What?

>>12000400
>There is in fact no such thing as unqualified truth in math and logic.
Is that an unqualified truth?

What about x = x? What about x implies x?

>>12000400
>You really don't see a parallel between people saying "redefining addition is bad, just use fractions" and people saying "negative numbers?
because that's not equivalent. how do you think that is? i pops out all over the place meanwhile you never have a situation where 2+2=5. how can you possibly think these are equivalent scenarios? they're not. look there is a time and place where "breaking" rules as you put it is useful, this isn't one of them.
>What's that bullshit, you can't have minus chicken.
you can owe chickens which can be expressed as negative chickens.

>>12000400
negative numbers are useful for accounting, e.g. debts
2 + 2 = 5 is useful for...?

>>12000411
>2 + 2 = 5 is useful for...?
trying to sound smart to midwits.

>>12000415
>midwits
Those aren't midwits, they're half-wits

>>12000408
That's a metamathematical statement

>>12000409
What do you mean it pops up all over the place, you can never have a negative chicken. It's just as abstract as overloading an addition operator to make your excel timesheets simpler to write.

>>12000411
They aren't necessary for accounting. In fact the whole thing of accounting is to sum up positive numbers in assets and liabilities.

>>12000418
Why did you ignore the last 2 questions?

>>12000421
why didn't you answer the question?

>>12000418
>overloading an addition operator to make your excel timesheets simpler to write.
What do you mean?

>>12000422
Those are usually part of the axioms of first order logic.
Did you know that you can build other logic systems, some of which still work very well and let you do beautiful math?

>>12000418
>What do you mean it pops up all over the place
example x^2=-1
>you can never have a negative chicken.
but you can owe a chicken which can be expressed as a negative in the books. suppose you have a chicken farm and you have been paid for 4 chickens but only have 3. you therefor owe one chicken or in your books can have it expressed as -1 chickens. also antimatter chickens. ;p

>>12000421
I didn't say they were necessary
I said they were useful

>>12000430
>some of which still work very well and let you do beautiful math
>2+2=5

>>12000430
>Those are usually part of the axioms of first order logic.
Thanks for proving me right.
>Did you know that you can build other logic systems, some of which still work very well and let you do beautiful math?
In which logic is x = x not true?
In which logic is x implies x not true?

>>12000426
Time table calculation. Already explained. Explain how time sheeting is less relevant than accounting.
>>12000429
It's the time table example Carr gave. There is literally nothing wrong with redefining + so that 2hours + 2hours is 4h30 in your excel sheet to make things simpler. And what have you done if not redefine addition

>>12000439
except excel will require the addition of 30mins in the equation line.

>>12000439
>Time table calculation
2+2=5 is useful for... time table calculation? Can you elaborate?

>>12000438
Why do those two examples matter more?
Also yes, first order logic without equality is a thing, although I don't know much about it.

>>12000439
>There is literally nothing wrong with redefining + so that 2hours + 2hours is 4h30 in your excel sheet to make things simpler.
Lolwut. How does that "make things simpler"?

>>12000439
>It's the time table example Carr gave.
that was tim gowers, and that was equally retarded.

>>12000439
>It's the time table example Carr gave.
Can you point me to this example?

>>12000443
>Why do those two examples matter more?
?
>first order logic without equality is a thing
Sure I guess, yet whenever = is used in the theory, it's used to denote a reflexive relation. So x = x is always true.

Also, again, in which logic is x implies x not true?

>>12000442
>>12000451
You want to plan multiple conferences, and leave 1 hour free between each session. Rather than writing a statement about array length every time, you overload the addition operator so that n + m (new) = n + m + 1 (classical) if n and m are not null, n + m (classical) otherwise. That's it.
>>12000444
Less symbols.
It's just as necessary as using negative numbers for accounting, that is, it's not.

>>12000460
So 4 sessions = 5 sessions?
Or 4 breaks = 5 breaks?

>>12000459
I don't understand why you're asking this question and what you're hoping to prove from it. Since I don't have a handy example of it, do you mean that it proves X implies X is a universal truth, unlike the excluded middle? On the basis that we haven't (maybe we do, I don't know) made a "rich" theory that doesn't use it?

>>12000460
that was tim gowers. and it's equally retarded. you know implicitly that you're adding the break between sessions. i think i finally figured out why perelman doesn't want anything to do with the modern mathematics community. this is next level fart sniffing.

>>12000463
5 sessions make 4 breaks, the overloaded operator would give us [session time] + 4 (classical) as expected

>>12000465
I'm asking exactly what I asked: In which logic is x implies x not true?

>>12000471
so x-1=y, where x is sessions and y is breaks. oh mang, sure needs a whole new operator for that one.

>>12000460
I'm confused about the quantities being added here. You're saying the type of this so-called "+" is sessions [math]\times[/math] sessions [math]\rightarrow[/math] breaks? It's not a magma?

>>12000472
None that I know of. Now stop prevaricating and make your point. What do you hope to prove from the statement "I don't know a rich logic system under which X implies X isn't true"?

>>12000471
but what about smoke breaks?

>>12000343
well what DOES it mean, positively speaking? in what way does it resemble addition?

>>12000487
>look ma I took out the thesaurus! i smart!

>>12000489
It's an internal composition law,it's associative and commutative. Not too bad

>>12000487
P implies P is a true statement.

>2+2=5

>>12000492
Can you prove it?

>>12000491
>internal composition law
?
>associative
>commutative
Just like multiplication, maximum, and minimum?

That's it? That's your "justification" for calling the operation f(x,y) = x + y + 1 "addition"? Why? Just... why?

>>12000497
Certainly.
Assume P.
P.
By implication introduction, P [math]\rightarrow[/math] P.

>>11988054
2+2=5 is correct if we take the symbol 5 as representing the current value we associate with the symbol 4. I think this is what they're trying to get at but it's an observation that's far less profound than they seem to think it is.

Basically they're saying:
>symbols have meanings

Wow. Ok.

>>12000343
>I did not. The guy talking about chicken is trying to make a statement about reality, which is why he's using real world's examples.
I don't know, anon. I might be dumb, but I think 2 chickens + 2 chickens = 4 chickens.

>>12000510
The fuck is an implication introduction
>>12000479
Woaw dude why do we need negative numbers for accounting just list positive numbers in assets and positive numbers in liabilities, no need for that negative tranny SJW mumbo-jumbo

>>12000460
>You want to plan multiple conferences, and leave 1 hour free between each session. Rather than writing a statement about array length every time, you overload the addition operator so that n + m (new) = n + m + 1 (classical) if n and m are not null, n + m (classical) otherwise.
What's the intended meaning here? 2 sessions "+" 2 sessions = 2 sessions + 2 sessions + 1 session = 5 sessions?

>>12000522
>The fuck is an implication introduction
Should've known I was talking to a retard.

>>12000460
why not just say sessions = breaks + 1?

>>12000522
Negative numbers are useful because they turn the naturals under addition into a group.
2 + 2 = 5 is useful because... remind me again? It turns the naturals into the trivial group? Lol.

>>12000528
No, for example one session of 3 hours plus one session of 2 hours = 6 hours

>>12000545
(see Grothendieck group construction)

>>12000532
Can you put it in usual logic language? Do you mean that you introduce implication as "X implies X"? You're gonna need to do a lot more work than that if you want to make use of implications

>>12000545
LMAO imagine thinking negative numbers were useless before we knew about modern algebra

>>12000546
So 3-hour-session "+" 4-hour-session "+" 2-hour-break = 3 + 1 + 4 + 1 + 2 hours = 11 hours?

>>12000556
>negative numbers were useless before we knew about modern algebra
But that's not what I said.

>>12000558
Then what did you say?
>>12000557
Yes

>>12000551
Jesus Christ at least take a basic introductory course in logic.

>>12000551
that IS the usual logic language you dunce

>>12000565
>Then what did you say?
I said "Negative numbers are useful because they turn the naturals under addition into a group."

>>12000565
why is there an extra break between a session and a break? what if I just want to add a longer break instead? do I need to subtract 1 from it first?

>muh retarded chicken """"addition""""
>muh retarded session/break/whatever-the-fuck """"addition""""
the absolute fucking state

>>12000573
And so what about before that sentence meant anything.
>>12000568
>>12000571
Right, sorry about that. So what's the point, some propositions of first order logic are universally true?

>>12000580
>And so what about before that sentence meant anything.
?

>>12000576
Well then I suppose you wouldn't use that operator overload.

>>12000580
>some propositions of first order logic are universally true?
Yes.

>>12000583
Of you lived before groups were known, would you agree that negative numbers are abhorrent tranny bullshit that is killing science?

>>12000418
>That's a metamathematical statement
What's the metatheory?

>>12000589
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Definition:Group_Axioms#Definition
The properties that characterize groups were known before the concept of a "group" was formalized. Do you understand that?

>>12000593
...e.g. the idea that -x is the number y such that x + y = 0 (every element has an inverse, under addition).

>>12000588
Well, how do you know which ones? The ones that are "obvious", keeping in mind that the excluded middle was "obvious" to a lot of people before others started doing logic without it?

>>12000598
>Well, how do you know which ones?
>>12000510

>>12000593
Still way newer than negative numbers innit?

>>12000600
So, just P implies P, and maybe P equal P but we're not so sure anymore?

>>12000609
?

>>11988054
>post on this board for 5 years telling the bufoons on this board what the Jews useful idiots are doing
>get called schizo and /pol/ by literal fucking autists
>bro what's going on please make this stop
stfu you retarded faggots, cry more

>>12000609
Also conjunction elimination, disjunction introduction, consequent conjunction introduction, antecedent disjunction introduction, etc.

>>12000613
I asked you which statement of logic you consider to be true independently of any axiomatization.

>>12000609
>maybe P equal P but we're not so sure anymore?
x equals x, yes.
P is typically used for propositional variables, not object variables, so your choice of notation is confusing.

>>12000631
>etc.
Uh ok, why those? Is there some sort of educated argument as to why you would hold those rules in particular to be universally true?

>>12000633
>I asked you which statement of logic you consider to be true independently of any axiomatization.
Do you understand what a model is? A model is not axiomatized. A *theory* is axiomatized.

It's not really newsworthy that a banana is a citrus fruit if you appropriate the word to mean orange or lemon. Literally up is down if you change what the words mean.

>>12000638
>Uh ok, why those? Is there some sort of educated argument as to why you would hold those rules in particular to be universally true?
Are you asking me why [math]A \land B \rightarrow A[/math] is true?

>>12000443
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-order_logic#First-order_logic_without_equality
That is, the equality relation may now be interpreted by an arbitrary equivalence relation on the domain of discourse that is congruent with respect to the functions and relations of the interpretation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_relation#Definition
>A given binary relation ~ on a set X is said to be an equivalence relation if and only if it is reflexive, symmetric and transitive.
So yes, x = x.

>>12000643
No I'm asking you exactly whoch set of logical propositions is universally true, how you came to this conclusion, and if this set is powerful enough to do usual arithmetic with it.
>>12000640
That's not what I'm asking. he says there are statements that are true in any theory, I want to know which ones

>>12000663
Ok, why do those examples matter so much, and exactly how much logic do you expect to be able to do with just P implies P and X = X?

>>12000666
>No I'm asking you exactly whoch set of logical propositions is universally true
No, you asked whether there is "such thing as unqualified truth in math and logic", not which set that is.

>>12000666
>if this set is powerful enough to do usual arithmetic with it
Are you asking whether there is a Fregean logicist-flavored foundation of arithmetic? I suggest reading Heck's book, I guess.

>>12000666
>there are statements that are true in any theory, I want to know which ones
Which model theory are you working in? Take intuitionistic model theory. Then any intuitionistic tautology works.

>>12000672
Well yeah, and I'm not exactly satisfied with your answer, since you just based one of your two examples on another rule. Which is why I suspect your whole theory of unqualified truths is a bit arbitrary

>>12000677
It has to be true in all of them anon, otherwise it's not really a universal truth, right.

>>12000678
You consider [math]A \land B \rightarrow A[/math] "arbitrary"?

>>12000680
Damn, you're hopelessly confused. Again, I don't think you understand what "model" means.

>>12000680
Let's take a step back. Do you even understand what a "structure" is?

>>12000671
Not him, but it's just a simple example so it's easy to follow. All the others are built in the same way.

>>12000683
I'm suggesting the process through which you decide which propositions are universally true to be arbitrary

>>12000465
>>12000598
The double-negation translation allows us to embed any classical tautology into intuitionistic logic.

>>12000693
Don't except some anons on this ungodly forum to explain this to your satisfaction. Pick up a textbook on mathematical logic.

>>12000693
>the process through which you decide...
Irrelevant. Stop trying to change the subject. Do you dispute that [math]A \land B \rightarrow A[/math] is true, yes or no?

>>12000697
Fair enough

>>12000693
>dude all knowledge is arbitrary lmao

>>12000703
Sorry for being harsh

>>11999999