[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

# /sci/ - Science & Math

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 734 KB, 1178x1188, Screen Shot 2020-08-30 at 1.56.11 PM.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/math/a33547137/why-some-people-think-2-plus-2-equals-5/
Incels will say we allowed too many women in STEM
/pol/'s favorite scapegoat, the jews, seem like a farfetched boogeyman.
Is it the corrupting of the academics by cultural marxists?
Is the seeping of truth relativity from the humanities breaking into STEM?
Russell was literally a socialist, but I could never see him write an essay like 2+2=5...
How did it get to this point?

 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 16:04:29 2020 No.12067273 File: 125 KB, 1202x490, Screen Shot 2020-08-30 at 2.03.49 PM.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 16:09:02 2020 No.12067294 >How did it get to this point?The long march through the institutions.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 16:19:02 2020 No.12067360 >>12067265>>12067273>Black>Emojis in twitter nameChecks out
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 16:26:52 2020 No.12067394 File: 108 KB, 642x756, yhamadtho.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>12067265There has been a general movement towards intellectual relativism, pushed by advertising agencies, the media, and politicians. All of them found it very convenient to sell their stuff to targeted audiences, by telling them that such and such is good or true for them because that's who they are. Carr there >>12067273 is not wrong, but liberalism is not the only ideology using relativism. Trump and his supporters also are not especially interested in universal truth.Identity politics, Apple and Starbucks, fake news, and 2+2=5 is in fact all one ideology, defined as ideas that follow the same pattern and reinforce each other though that.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 16:27:00 2020 No.12067395 >>12067265It's amazing how lefties can write so much and say so little
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 16:30:13 2020 No.12067410 I get the argument being made here but the issue is we already have a variety of tools in place to represent contextually based problems. Adding ".5" to each 2 gives solves the factory example given without delving too much in the details.The topic seems redundant.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 16:30:43 2020 No.12067412 >Twatter literally makes people dumber
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 16:38:41 2020 No.12067440 File: 55 KB, 599x424, niggers.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 17:46:02 2020 No.12067621 >twitter faggots are acting retarded againYawn
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 17:50:47 2020 No.12067641 >adding a fox to a henthe point is generally correct but its so contrived and pointless. 2+2 = whatever the fuck you want it to be but 3 + 3 = whatever the fuck you want it to be + 2(or some symbolic representation for "two")
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 17:51:59 2020 No.12067644 >this is the power of black "scientists" whoa really makes me think...
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 17:52:36 2020 No.12067647 File: 54 KB, 720x405, 1 gt4xgjcXEmvOevAFLxoG8w.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>12067265The nice thing is that this idiocy will eventually collapse in on itself. The West may be out of time, but our friends in China and Russia will keep scientific progress going.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 17:52:39 2020 No.12067648 2 factories + 2 factores = 5 machineshuh? do people not know what units are?
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 17:56:12 2020 No.12067666 >>12067648I thought this was just a meme about the whole being greater than the sum of it's parts.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 17:58:19 2020 No.12067677 >>12067410It is, on purpose, to confuse and obfuscate and yes, demoralize."How did it come to this".
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 17:59:43 2020 No.12067683 File: 786 KB, 1000x1105, 1593925289547.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>12067647>Russialol
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 17:59:50 2020 No.12067685 >>120672652 plus 2 equals 5 is the abstraction of information confirmation2 apples and 2 apples added to a box results in how many apples in the box?4 is an assumption, not really the answer. if the box has a hole in it and an apple fell out then the answer will be 3. if someone added an apple into the box when youre about to answer then it will be 5.its abstraction and brainlets like you will never understand it. stick to simple math and stop following smart people.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 18:01:20 2020 No.12067690 >>12067685This so much. So many fucking retards here lately.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 18:01:51 2020 No.12067694 >>12067685>>12067690I'm pretty sure it was first used to describe synergy but okay.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 18:02:21 2020 No.12067698 >>12067683Well, they're not Western, and this idiocy seems to be a Western disease. Substitute it with India if that makes you feel better.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 18:03:56 2020 No.12067707 >>12067685The first scenario in your post is 2 + 2 - 1 = 3.The second is 1 + 2 +2 = 5.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 18:04:09 2020 No.12067711 >>12067265Kareem Carr the author and advocate of 2+2=5 is a PhD candidate in Biostatistics at Harvard. He is black. What a stunning endorsement of affirmative action he is.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 18:14:59 2020 No.12067749 >>12067641>the point is generally correctIt’s not.>2+2 = whatever the fuck you want it to beNo, 2 + 2 = 4.>3 + 3 = whatever the fuck you want it to beNo, 3 + 3 = 6.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 18:16:01 2020 No.12067750 >>12067410>I get the argument being made hereThere is none.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 18:16:27 2020 No.12067753 2.4999... rounds to 22.4999... rounds to 2 2.4999...+2.4999... = 4.999... = 5
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 18:17:04 2020 No.12067757 File: 41 KB, 550x400, 9232CBB6-DADE-4992-9050-844AB2785FDD.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>12067690>This so much.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 18:18:10 2020 No.12067762 File: 19 KB, 500x208, Principia_Mathematica_54-43.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>12067641If you can't read this you aren't in position to tell us what 2 + 2 is, nigger.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 18:18:14 2020 No.12067763 >>12067690Anyone here who thinks 2 + 2 = 5 (e.g. you) is guaranteed to be a retard.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 18:19:03 2020 No.12067768 >>12067683This does raise a good point though. Maybe the Russians or Chinese are astroturfing twitter to encourage Westerners to turn their backs on basic science and math, helping these powers overtake the West.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 18:20:15 2020 No.12067776 >biostatistician>mathematicanhaha funny maymay
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 18:27:44 2020 No.12067802 >>12067265>How did it get to this point?Critical Theory has infected academia like airborne AIDS.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 18:33:17 2020 No.12067818 >>12067265https://twitter.com/andrejbauer/status/1296555230184837122 almost of 80% of all commutative unital semirings of size at most 6 satisfy 2+2=5
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 18:38:15 2020 No.12067837 >>12067647yes, but in a way I kinda like what is happening because the more absurd they become the faster we will come out of this epoch and maybe we'll even call it "the absurd epoch" or "the up side down age"... btw theres an interesting and deeper issue in the sense that uncertainty is the way of modern physics, this seems to be a "logos of history" kind of thing or as carl jung would call it "a manifestation of universal conciousness" that we gonna have to go throu in the process of historyeven the whole black lives thing is eerie in the sense that it is centered on "black" meaning "negativity" more that on a real positive movement
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 18:38:53 2020 No.12067839 File: 28 KB, 595x591, 1570729584013.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>12067818Proof?
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 18:42:44 2020 No.12067852 >>12067818None of those semirings are the natural numbers under addition and multiplication. You understand that, right? Right?You want an example of a semiring? (N, max, +). max(2, 2) = 2. Are you going to claim that 2 apples plus 2 apples is 2 apples, i.e. 2 + 2 = 2? Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is?Stop babbling about subjects you don’t understand.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 18:44:48 2020 No.12067859 >>12067265What is the actual argument being made here? I'm not going to read their stupid paper.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 18:44:55 2020 No.12067860 >>12067265dumb fuck, 2+2=5 up to permutation on the set of integers
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 18:45:30 2020 No.12067862 >>12067265Incels are right, women has taken socialism by feminism, jews are just taking advantage of the situation, as usual.Women's mind is reactionary, doesn't care for the facts, they are always right...no matter if are wrong.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 18:48:19 2020 No.12067871 >>12067852Nobody saying 2+2=5 is talking either about apples or $\mathbb{N}$ though; given that $\mathbb{N}$ is the initial semiring, it's totally reasonable to refer to the image of $n \in \mathbb{N}$ as an element of an arbitrary semiring, exactly the way one does in the rest of algebra.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 18:51:35 2020 No.12067886 >>12067862The main moron pushing this is a man.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 18:52:27 2020 No.12067889 >>12067859Kareem Carr is a biostat phd student. His argument is essentially that "2+2=4" and similar statements are abstractions, and don't have a god given meaning; there are some real-world contexts in which the most convenient associated mathematical model satisfies 2+2=5, so one ought to respond to "2+2=5" by prompting for more details rather than blanketly dismissing them.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 18:54:02 2020 No.12067895 >>12067880Sorry, I blacklisted twitter on my home network and my DNS server is in basement, I'm lazy to, can you link to something relevant?
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 18:54:40 2020 No.12067896 >>12067871>Nobody saying 2+2=5 is talking either about apples or ℕYes, they are. >>12067685 The twattertards also talk about real-world examples with apples and chickens.>>12067860>given that ℕ is the initial semiringIt satisfies 2 + 2 = 4. You do know that, right?> the image of n∈ℕImage under what?
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 18:55:46 2020 No.12067902 >>12067871>Nobody saying 2+2=5 is talking either about apples or Nthey literally are, you illiterate retard
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 18:56:47 2020 No.12067906 >>12067889>there are some real-world contexts in which the most convenient associated mathematical model satisfies 2+2=5Name one.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 18:57:48 2020 No.12067915
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 19:02:10 2020 No.12067931 >>12067896by "the image of $n \in \mathbb{N}$ in an arbitrary semiring $R$" I mean the image under the morphism $\mathbb{N} \rightarrow R$.>>12067896>>12067902fair, I tend to block out random shitposting on 4chan and refer to the mathematicians supporting the 2+2=5 thing, who talk mostly about e.g. semirings in which this is true. That being said, I do think that the "1+1=3 because chickens" thing is more or less valid, if not asinine; they're essentially saying that there exist models that might be useful where the notation 2+2=5 is valid, which is nearly self-evidently true.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 19:03:30 2020 No.12067936 >>12067931>I mean the image under the morphismAnd what does that have to do with my post? What are you saying?
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 19:04:45 2020 No.12067941 >>12067931>in which this is trueIt isn’t. You are confusing use and mention. It’s like saying true is false by redefining false.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 19:05:57 2020 No.12067947 >>12067931>That being said, I do think that the "1+1=3 because chickens" thing is more or less validHow is it “valid”? It’s nonsense. It’s literally incorrect. Again, are you willing to put your money where your blathering mouth is? You aren’t, because you also know it’s bullshit.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 19:07:01 2020 No.12067952 >>12067931>there exist models that might be useful where the notation 2+2=5 is validThere aren’t. Refer to my tropical semiring example.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 19:09:16 2020 No.12067960 >>12067906Turns out I am not Kareem Carr, nor am I more familiar with his work than on a summary-level.I can reference one I've seen used, but it'll be contrived. For instance, suppose you aim to describe the population of chickens; suppose you have a pen capable of housing an arbitrary number of chickens and a single egg. Use the notation $n+m$ to denote, for two separate populations of size $n$ and $m$, the population size resulting from mixing the populations in a pen and allowing a single gestation period. Then, $2+2=5$.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 19:10:18 2020 No.12067967 >>12067952you know, tropical geometry is sometimes considered useful or interesting
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 19:11:11 2020 No.12067973 >>12067960lmao
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 19:11:42 2020 No.12067976 >>12067960If egg is a chicken, then 2 + 2 + 1 = 5, if not, 2 + 2 = 4, there's no other way moron.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 19:12:17 2020 No.12067981 >>12067967You didn’t understand what I said. Take a breather and read it again.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 19:12:47 2020 No.12067983 >>12067936So 2,2,5,+,= all are frequently used in reference to elements, operations, or equality in an arbitrary semiring, and there exist semirings in which 2+2=5.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 19:14:19 2020 No.12067996 >>12067960>I’ll use the notation 1 to denote 0. Therefore 1 = 0. Voilà!There you have it, folks. This is how of the mind of a leftist works. No wonder they're so hopelessly confused.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 19:16:29 2020 No.12068010 >>12067983>So 2,2,5,+,= all are frequently used in reference to elements, operations, or equality in an arbitrary semiringName one where 2 + 2 is not 4 and justify the use of the symbol + as opposed to any other symbol. You can't.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 19:18:46 2020 No.12068026 >>12068010>justify the use of the symbol + as opposed to any other symboloh so we're allowed to have 2x2=5 but the + symbol is Illegal for use in that context lel kek lmao ahaha
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 19:19:09 2020 No.12068029 >>12067996This is literally how mathematics works. To use an example that another poster used, in the tropical semiring $(\mathbb{R} \cup \{-\infty},\text{max}, +)$, the "multiplication" is given by traditional addition on $\mathbb{R}$. In the tradition of referring to the multiplicative identity as 1, the usual element 0 may be referred to as 1 if you're dealing in a sufficiently abstract context (i.e. if you're using other semirings and not caring too much about the specifics of the tropical semiring). You probably wouldn't say 1=0 in this context, since you'd probably define 0 to be what's usually referred to as $-\infty$.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 19:19:15 2020 No.12068030 >>12067960So 0 + 0 = 1 according to your idiotic notationNice "addition" fuckface
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 19:20:15 2020 No.12068039 >>12068026>oh so we're allowed to have 2x2=5Where did I say that, you mouthbreathing retard?
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 19:21:29 2020 No.12068047 >>12068029That was my example you stupid idiot, and the point was that max(2,2)=2 does NOT imply we should use the notation 2+2=2.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 19:22:35 2020 No.12068053 >>12068029And it was in the natural numbers, not the reals. Lrn2read.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 19:25:14 2020 No.12068071 File: 87 KB, 386x622, Ef5jG1oXgAIuTPq.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>12068010This example in the thread I linked was on a bit of a weird set of axioms (not including the axiom x*0=0); i don't have an example on hand where there are annihilating 0s, but many such examples have been computationally verified to exist.It's customary to use + for the additive monoid associated with a semiring.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 19:26:46 2020 No.12068080 I'm making a prediction right now>Liberal media discovers modular arithmetic>2+2=1 too!!!fucking retards
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 19:27:39 2020 No.12068088 >>12068047>>12068053Right, I switched to the tropical semiring, rather than the sub-semiring on $\mathbb{N}$ so that I could reference tropical geometry. Again, the notation 2+2=2 is customary when viewing the tropical semiring as a semiring. Idk read the wikipedia page or something https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiring
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 19:29:04 2020 No.12068104 File: 265 KB, 747x525, 1598742401923.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] When 2 liberals meet, [eqn]1+1=3[/eqn]
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 19:31:15 2020 No.12068121 >>12067871>Nobody saying 2+2=5 is talking either about apples or N>>12067931>That being said, I do think that the "1+1=3 because chickens" thing is more or less validNice backpedaling you dishonest turd
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 19:35:40 2020 No.12068142 >>12068121When I say "nobody is talking about apples" I mean specifically that nobody is saying that if you put two piles of two apples together, you get 5 apples. The "quantities of apples under combination of piles" thing is modeled by $\mathbb{N}$.Why are you so angry? Are you a mathematician? This is not controversial among math people that aren't just looking to be mad at something.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 19:36:22 2020 No.12068151 >>12068088>Again, the notation 2+2=2 is customaryIt isn’t, you liar and/or dunce. The customary notation used is $\oplus$, PRECISELY to distinguish it from ordinary addition, which is denoted by +.Again, stop blabbering about things you don’t understand.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 19:37:30 2020 No.12068160 >>12068142>nobody is saying that if you put two piles of two apples together, you get 5 applesthey literally are though. have you even looked at these threads?
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 19:38:10 2020 No.12068165 >>12068151Are you dense? Read the rest of the sentence.When you say "2+2" in an arbitrary semiring, you say something about the tropical semiring as well.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 19:38:39 2020 No.12068169 Is the same old tired bullshit where they try to redefine algebra or some shit>2 + 2 = 5>>dats wrong>no RETARD I was actually saying 2x+2x =5y and you forgot to ask what x and y were hahahaha LOL checkmate drumpftardor>2+2=5 if by 5 I mean 4 :^)
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 19:38:42 2020 No.12068170 >>12068142>This is not controversial among math peopleThe claim that 2 + 2 = 5 is indeed “controversial” among most math people.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 19:40:03 2020 No.12068180 >>12067685Top tier bait
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 19:40:06 2020 No.12068181 >>12068165>read the rest of the sentence>"when viewing the tropical semiring as a semiring"Doesn’t rebut anything I said, you stupid monkey. Of course the tropical semiring is a semiring.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 19:41:17 2020 No.12068189 >>12068170Granted I mostly interact with algebraists, but those that I've talked to tend to agree that there exist semirings in which 2+2=5, and hence the statement "2+2=5 is false" is not true without making extra assumptions on the semiring you're working in.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 19:42:39 2020 No.12068194 >>12067983>>12068029>>12068071>>12068088>>12068142>>12068165>>12068189>still confusing use and mentionnot gonna make it
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 19:42:45 2020 No.12068196 >>12068181yes.Because the tropical semiring is a semiring, there exists a semiring in which 2+2=2.Hence there are valid mathematical contexts in which 2+2=2.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 19:44:16 2020 No.12068203 >>12068189If I say true is false, will you take that claim at face value? I really want to know if that's what you've been blathering about the whole time. That would be hilarious.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 19:47:48 2020 No.12068221 File: 121 KB, 305x192, uwot.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 19:49:36 2020 No.12068230 >>12068194I really don't know why you think this is relevant to a mathematical discussion, or more specifically how this has anything to do with whether there exists a mathematical context wherein the statement "2+2=5" is useful and true.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 19:52:06 2020 No.12068242 Guys. GUYS. Listen up. Important announcement. I've solved the Riemann hypothesis by redefining it as the Pythagorean theorem.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 19:54:53 2020 No.12068256 >>12068203The statement "true is false" needs to be qualified. I'm no logician, but I'm assuming this is only meaningfully true in either inconsistent or fairly trivial logic, so I'd be inclined to say that there aren't very useful contexts where that's true.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 19:55:18 2020 No.12068259 >>12067265>>12067395it is pretty concerning that this is coming from a PhD candidate, that dressing up "numbers are abstractions" as some big-brain clickbait twitter post to get attention is something you would think is worth doing>"People like this sound stupid but they are making a tremendously deep point. Our numbers, our quantitative measures, are abstractions of real underlying things in the universe and it's important to keep track of this when we use numbers to model the real world"his post has nothing to do with math and boils down to "statistics don't tell the whole story that words can" so that twitter NPCs think he's saying something profound and give likes
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 19:55:43 2020 No.12068263 >>12068230>STILL confusing use and mentionplease readhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use–mention_distinctionhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referenthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naming_conventionthanks
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 19:56:53 2020 No.12068268 >>12068256LOL
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 19:57:20 2020 No.12068271 >>12068242Based.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 19:58:23 2020 No.12068280 File: 1.15 MB, 220x165, 068F235E-F132-4172-9850-AD30CD14B6DB.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 19:59:10 2020 No.12068287 >>12067265Never use the words 'scapegoat', 'jews' and 'boogeyman' in the same sentence ever again. It is tiresome, overused and indicates what a brainlet you are.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 19:59:25 2020 No.12068289 >>12068280meant for this funny lad >>12068256
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 20:00:49 2020 No.12068296 >>12068263Yeah no need to condescend. There exists a convention pretty standard among algebraists that $(R,+,\cdot)$ may refer to a semiring, and that the image of $n \in \mathbb{N}$ in $R$ under the canonical morphism $\mathbb{N} \rightarrow R$ is referred to simply as $n \in R$. The "2+2=5 is simply wrong" folks are shunning the existing naming conventions for semirings.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 20:02:51 2020 No.12068305 >>12068296Are you capable of reading? This >>12068151 is the convention that is actually used, in order to avoid confusion.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 20:04:34 2020 No.12068312 >>12068296>are shunning the existing naming conventions for semiringsNo they aren't, you liar or ignoramus. They're UPHOLDING the standard convention, which is >>12068151.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 20:06:18 2020 No.12068320 >2.5 +2.5 = 5Woah
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 20:07:30 2020 No.12068323 >>12068312>>12068305I'm talking about an arbitrary semiring, not the tropical semiring in particular.I already linked wikipedia. Maybe nlab? https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/rig
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 20:08:04 2020 No.12068324 >>12067265It's just garden variety institutional decay brought about by demagoguery. It plays itself out in many late stage empires.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 20:08:40 2020 No.12068326 File: 6 KB, 227x222, C432EEE8-AD8E-4525-8F7F-34BCA5B72C36.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >if you redefine words from their standard meaning you can make this obviously false statement trueWhy do people think they sound smart for saying this?
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 20:13:12 2020 No.12068336 >>12068323I already explained to you that notation which causes confusion is avoided. 1 is commonly used to denote the identity element in a general monoid. It is NOT commonly used to denote the identity element in the specific monoid (N, +), for obvious reasons.Supserscript minus one is commonly used to denote inverse in a general group. It is NOT commonly used to denote inverse in the specific group (Z, +), again for obvious reasons.Take your head out of your ass and stop beating a dead horse.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 20:15:55 2020 No.12068338 File: 56 KB, 753x499, 48epdy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] Shut the fuck up
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 20:20:23 2020 No.12068347 >>12067647>>12067698>>12067683>>12067768I agree it's kind of amusing and funny in a way, but the disturbing thing is that a lot of Western leftists and Twatter NPCs are actually falling for this wokeshit. You might say “it’s just harmless social media brainwashing that will play itself out”, but doesn’t it disturb you a bit?https://youtube.com/watch?v=C9SiRNibD14
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 20:22:26 2020 No.12068352 >>12068336Yes, but when somebody says "$n^{-1}$ for $n$ an element of a monoid $M$", this does not mean "every monoid which is not traditionally referred to in additive notation."Similarly, the statement "there exists a semiring in which 2+2=2" is true even if the immediate example would not traditionally be written in that notation. To respond to this statement by saying that it's wrong, a (((cultural marxist))) conspiracy, or some other nonsense simply does not line up with the way that algebraists understand those symbols and use them to communicate with each other.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 20:24:58 2020 No.12068361 >>12067265LOL this thread is full of retards. All you people should read "where mathematics comes from" instead of spouting platonist bullshit
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 20:26:07 2020 No.12068367 All of this retarded spin just so you can build an argument against biological sex or argue that objective truths are false.This is leftwing doctrine and it's harmful.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 20:26:22 2020 No.12068368 >>12068352>still beating the dead horseThere’s no reason for you to try to “save face” here, you know. This is an anonymous forum.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 20:26:46 2020 No.12068369 >>12067265>twitter thread turned into article turned into tweet turned into 4chan threadgo develop schizophrenia, maybe you'll write something interesting
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 20:27:24 2020 No.12068372 >>12068361Most logicians *and* philosophers of math are platonists.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 20:28:41 2020 No.12068375 >>12068368Kind of projecting on the need to "save face" but ok
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 20:34:17 2020 No.12068391 >>12068375>projectingI’ll rephrase the point, since you seem to have trouble grasping it. Notation which causes confusion, especially by CONFLICTING with existing notation, is avoided, and for good reason. It’s bad notation. It’s stupid. It’s silly. And anyone who insists on using bad notation is being silly and/or deliberately deceptive. Not smart. Not profound. Just silly.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 20:40:33 2020 No.12068409 >>12068372>>12068372"most logicians and philosophers", that's just an argument by anonymous authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_wordWho the heck cares what most logicians and philosophers think. From the article of the "Two Dogmas of Empricism", one can tell that mathematics only has an origin in our experience and intuitions about space and quantity in our interaction with whatever is that we call reality via our perspective and never reality on its own. (and this perspective, our language, our experience, and the intuition we have about our experience, is just a fallible source of knowledge, not some divine source or what have you that is true for all possible context, rather it's completely contingent and parasitic to our own small existence as we contemplate the infinite but in a way that remains eternally limited, and mathematics is definitely not an exception)
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 20:41:26 2020 No.12068410 >>12068391This is only confusing because you don't understand it as well as most algebraists do.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 20:46:01 2020 No.12068418 >>12068352>To respond to this statement by saying that it's wrongSo any time you hear someone IRL say something false, you’ll always refuse to take their statement at face value? What if their “explanation” is using terms in a nonstandard way? What if their explanation of those is also using terms in a nonstandard way? How will you ever be able to understand what anyone is saying, ever? Language convention exists for a reason. So take your nonsense and shove it up your ass.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 20:48:58 2020 No.12068424 >>12068410What is it that you claim I don’t understand? I already showed that your notation is NOT the standard one (e.g. in the case of the tropical semiring). The only one here who doesn’t seem to understand standard mathematical conventions is you.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 20:49:40 2020 No.12068425 >>12068418The statement I'm referring to is "there exists a semiring in which 2+2=2"
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 20:52:40 2020 No.12068433 >>12068424You don't seem to understand that it's customary to refer to an arbitrary semiring as $(R,+,\cdot)$, and statements about existence of a semiring satisfying an algebraic condition need not be expressed in the notation $(\mathbb{N},\text{max},+)$ to have your semiring come as a valid example.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 20:53:07 2020 No.12068435 >>12068347why are leftists so fucking stupid and insane?it's getting concerning at this point.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 20:55:20 2020 No.12068439 >>12068433We are talking about notation. It is not customary to denote maximum by + (as opposed to $\oplus$) in the tropical semiring.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 20:58:09 2020 No.12068444 >>12068439You have to be trolling.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 20:58:18 2020 No.12068446 >>12067685This is why they clamp.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 20:59:08 2020 No.12068447 >>12068433the idiotic choice of notation is exactly what's being discussed, as stated in the second sentence of >>12068151
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 21:00:10 2020 No.12068448 >>12068444Take a look for yourself, retard.https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/tropical+semiringhttps://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/max-plus+algebra
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 21:00:48 2020 No.12068450 >>12068447Do you think there's a reason that you have to clip partial clauses out of my posts? Maybe that the rest of the post contextualizes that clause, and responding to a half clause is a misunderstanding of what I'm saying?
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 21:02:25 2020 No.12068452 >>12068448You're not understanding what I'm saying. Reread >>12068433
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 21:04:33 2020 No.12068454 >>12068450Your first clause says >it's customary to refer to an arbitrary semiring as (R,+,⋅)which has exactly zero bearing on whether it's customary to use that notation to denote something other than addition IN THE CONTEXT OF NATURAL NUMBERS (it isn't, because + already has an established meaning for natural numbers).
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 21:05:14 2020 No.12068455 >>12068454Read the rest of the post too
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 21:06:29 2020 No.12068459 >>12068455I did, but thanks for wasting everyone’s time again by deflecting.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 21:07:42 2020 No.12068462 >>12068459If you read the rest of the post then you'd understand that I already responded to what you're saying.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 21:09:51 2020 No.12068463 >>12068462>statements about existence of a semiring satisfying an algebraic condition need not be expressed in the notation [correct, unambiguous notation]...Are you fucking stupid? Do you legitimately have brain damage? Did I not explicitly say my point is precisely about the choice of notation used to express the statement?
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 21:16:05 2020 No.12068475 >>12068463read the sentence slowlywhen I say "a semiring exists satisfying ..." I don't have to use the notation of the particular semiring for what I'm saying to be the true or for it to be good notation.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 21:19:43 2020 No.12068486 >>12068475>for it to be good notationYes it does.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 21:21:11 2020 No.12068492 >>12068475so 1 + 0 = 0 is good notation, in your estimation? fucking retard
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 21:24:14 2020 No.12068495 >>12068475So for instance would you say "there exists a semiring $(R,+,\cdot)$ such that the monoid (R,+) is idempotent" is bad notation if you're secretly thinking of the tropical semiring when you write that?
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 21:26:05 2020 No.12068503 >>12068495rip should have been linking this >>12068486
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 21:29:37 2020 No.12068511 >>12068495>>12068503No, because unlike the statement 2 + 2 = 5, it(a) does not refer to a specific semiring like the tropical semiring, and(b) does not refer to specific elements of said semiring using numerals, for which + has an established meaningWhat’s so hard to get about this? Why do you insist on idiotic notation?
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 21:31:19 2020 No.12068517 >>12067265ALL OF THIS SHIT IS ORWELL'S FAULT!He fucked us. He wrote a book decrying this over-the-top completely unimaginable totalitarianism, with insane technology. We've developed the technology far beyond what he described, making universal surveillance possible. And now this. The centerpiece of his book was that 2+2=4. All else follows from that: and that's what under attack.Orwell invoked historical irony just like Malthus. History worked on Malthusian principles right up until he wrote his book. Orwell personally killed objective reality: the Frankfurt school and relativism generally is HIS FAULT!
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 21:31:20 2020 No.12068518 >>12068511Ok so then reread >>12068433 one more time, and recall that 2 and 5 have a canonical meanings as elements of an arbitrary semiring.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 21:44:11 2020 No.12068545 >>12068518>2 and 5 have a canonical meanings as elements of an arbitrary semiringFirst of all, they don’t, you stupid moron. Take the formal languages on the alphabet {a,b} generated by union and concatenation.Second, your point is irrelevant. The point is that if numerals are being used then + denotes addition, by convention. This has nothing to do with whether such numerals are used in the first place.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 21:44:15 2020 No.12068546 >>12068517Fabian Society something or other.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 21:51:44 2020 No.12068559 File: 703 KB, 245x184, pure seething anger.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>12067265https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHAuGA7gqFU&list=LLgX0yx9SR3EGsZQRyW7htcw&index=2&t=0sThis whole fiasco reminds me of that small movie. What a clown world we have become. It sickens me.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 21:58:29 2020 No.12068576 >>12068518how does that address the point that + denotes addition when seated between numerals?
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 22:00:39 2020 No.12068580 >>12068545In this semiring, the multiplicative unit is given by $\{\varepsilon\}$, where $\varepsilon$ is the empty string. Since this semiring is idempotent, one might say that $n = 1$ for all $n \in \left\{1,2,3,\dots\right\} \subset R$ (for R the semiring); again, this is not all that unusual if you're in an algebraic context where you're relating $R$ to other semirings.>The point is that if numerals are being used then + denotes addition, by convention.Yes, + denotes addition according to the relevant semiring structure. It is not the case that numerals are used uniquely to represent the natural numbers, and + is not used between numerals solely to represent the usual addition on the natural numbers.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 22:01:59 2020 No.12068585 >>12068576For an example of where this isn't true, see $\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}$.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 22:03:00 2020 No.12068589 >>12068585(assuming "addition" refers to addition of natural numbers).
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 22:11:18 2020 No.12068604 >>12068580so your choice of notation is to say that 2 = 5?
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 22:14:33 2020 No.12068611 >>12068604where it's understood that $2,5 \in R$ yes, this is standard in algebra.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 22:15:22 2020 No.12068613 >>12068585>>12068580>It is not the case that numerals are used uniquely to represent the natural numbersNatural numbers are precisely what the Twattertards are referring to, hence we're discussing + *in the context of natural numbers*.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 22:16:08 2020 No.12068617 >>12067647It's curious everything in the social and culture sphere is going topsy-turvy speficially now, when we are a decade or two away from advanced machine learning, massive automation, and early transhumanism.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 22:18:13 2020 No.12068621 >>12068613they're not though? Not the mathematicians I've seen talking on the subject
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 22:20:07 2020 No.12068625 >>12068611That’s not the way it’s expressed in the context that semiring. Mathematicians don’t use 2 + 2 = 5 to refer to {e} U {e} = {e} U {e} U {e} U {e} U {e}. This is doubly true with regard to doing so without explanation.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 22:21:16 2020 No.12068630 >>12068621>they're not though?You’re one dishonest sack of shit, I’ll give you that. Did you “miss” the examples of counting apples and chickens?
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 22:26:03 2020 No.12068640 File: 88 KB, 1204x694, ED5E0488-84E9-495E-98DA-4035F83E5F83.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>12067265why don't we just gas these "people" already?
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 22:27:58 2020 No.12068644 >>12068630The "counting apples and chickens" are usually not mathematicians, and are also often talking about models which aren't really the natural numbers in an intuitive sense; there's some vague notion of uncertainty, or some more complicated construct; it's often something like "like 2 apples, but you're not totally sure" or some vague thing like that
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 22:29:10 2020 No.12068647 File: 103 KB, 828x727, A420725B-88BF-4022-AAC6-F03F5909F484.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] lol
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 22:30:10 2020 No.12068651 >>12068644>are also often talking about models which aren't really the natural numbers in an intuitive senseWrong. They’re talking about counting objects, i.e. natural numbers. Not surprising that you’re trying to defend their idiocy, though.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 22:31:23 2020 No.12068654 >>12068644>there's some vague notion of uncertainty, or some more complicated construct; it's often something like "like 2 apples, but you're not totally sure" or some vague thing like thatThere’s no “vague notion of uncertainty” or whatever mumbo-jumbo you’re trying to pull out of your ass in the mathematical expression 2 + 2.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 22:32:12 2020 No.12068656 >>12068625**Proposition.** If $(R,+)$ is an idempotent monoid, then $n = 1$ for $n \in \{1,2,\dots\}$.Since there exists an idempotent semiring $(R,+,\cdot)$, there exists a semiring $R$ wherein $2 + 2 = 5$.The point of me repeating this is to demonstrate the value of abstraction.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 22:35:45 2020 No.12068666 >>12068654An expression has precisely the meaning it's given, and I don't know how you're getting from my post that I endorse those particular models. I literally called them vague twice to signal that I'm not a huge fan of the "uncertainty" thing in particular. My point is that they're not trying to talk about the natural numbers.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 22:35:53 2020 No.12068667 File: 84 KB, 640x640, thinking cat.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>12068647>"1+1=3" is more deeply true than "1+1=2" because the overwhelming majority of calculations on which our lives depend involve rounded numbers on computerswhat the actual fuck did he mean by this
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 22:36:48 2020 No.12068669 >>12068651do you view everything from this "me vs them, everybody who doesn't agree with me must agree with them" lens?
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 22:37:05 2020 No.12068670 >>12068666>My point is that they're not trying to talk about the natural numbers.Again you open your mouth and lie. They're talking about counting objects (e.g. hens, sessions, or whatever), i.e. they're talking about natural numbers.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 22:38:08 2020 No.12068674 >>12068669Do you? Because that would explain why you're so insistent on defending obviously false statements about counting.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 22:38:38 2020 No.12068676 >>12067685>2 apples and 2 apples added to a box results in how many apples in the box>if someone added an apple into the box when youre about to answer then it will be 5.the absolute state of the humanities
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 22:41:31 2020 No.12068682 >>12068670You speak of "they" as if this is a single person. When I say "they are often talking about models" I don't mean literally 100% of them.There certainly exist examples; when people say "2 apples, but I'm not really sure, so it could be like 1.8 apples or 2.2" they're certainly not referencing bare natural numbers.Why are you so antagonistic about this? You turn "I disagree with you" into "you're lying and a moron" (even though I'm not wrong, and if I was, it doesn't seem like it would be the disingenuous or moronic kind of wrongness).
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 22:43:01 2020 No.12068687 >>12068674Again, what part of >there's some vague notion of uncertainty, or some more complicated construct; it's often something like "like 2 apples, but you're not totally sure" or some vague thing like thatsounds like me just totally defending them? I called their ideas vague twice in the same sentence.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 22:46:00 2020 No.12068696 >>12068682But they're not saying "1.8 apples or 2.2 apples", are they? They're saying "2 apples".
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 22:47:58 2020 No.12068699 File: 3.14 MB, 2493x2398, FieldsMedalFront.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>12068242this anon will win the big one for sure
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 22:48:39 2020 No.12068700 >>12067685>if the box has a hole in it and an apple fell out then the answer will be 3That's 2 + 2 - 1 = 3>if someone added an apple into the box when youre about to answer then it will be 5.That's 2 + 2 + 1 = 5None of those are 2 + 2 = 5.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 22:49:42 2020 No.12068705 File: 19 KB, 409x393, don drink.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>12068256>The statement "true is false" needs to be qualified.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 22:51:10 2020 No.12068713 >>120676852+2-1=3∴2+2=3
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 22:53:00 2020 No.12068718 File: 39 KB, 649x489, 78539.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>12068713who ever thought /sci/ troll math would be taken seriously
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 22:57:17 2020 No.12068735 >>12068682>even though I'm not wrongsorry, you are seriously wrong if you think 2 apples plus 2 apples is 5 apples. like dead wrong.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 23:08:39 2020 No.12068775 >>12067265>Is it the corrupting of the academics by cultural marxists?But anon, who do you think are the cultural marxists... ?I'll give you a hint, it starts with "J" and rhymes with lose.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 23:08:45 2020 No.12068776 File: 192 KB, 621x938, 1533580369110.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>120672652 dollars plus 2 dollars is 4 dollars. Anyone telling you otherwise is bullshitting you and probably trying to rip you off.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 23:14:22 2020 No.12068793 >>12068776Kek. Spending time with his family made him so depressed that he lost all hope for the country.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 23:16:34 2020 No.12068805 >>12067265It's not relativism. Math takes axioms. Depending on the axioms you do math. Admittedly taking hegelian logic as an axiom isn't helpful on many things but it can be done.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 23:23:34 2020 No.12068826 >>12068805https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Hegelian+taconot quite hegelian axioms as foundations, but amusing and almost relevant
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 23:26:34 2020 No.12068830 >>12068793I thought the joke was that he doesn't have a family and depressed that western civilisation won't provide him a family. And the deeper joke is that they guy is misshapen and sloppily dressed no woman will give him the time of day.
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 23:31:12 2020 No.12068837 >>12068776Kek, look at the toddler in the background dressed just like him
 >> Anonymous Sun Aug 30 23:39:34 2020 No.12068849 >>12068517Orwell also fucked us by accidentally convincing the Proles that they're members of the Outer Party.
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 01:12:08 2020 No.12069011 File: 36 KB, 480x360, hqdefault.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>12067265>How did it get to this point?runaway marxist subversion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9TviIuXPSE
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 01:23:31 2020 No.12069022 >>12068775Jose?
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 02:22:10 2020 No.12069108 >>12067265He just lies about what mathematicians do. He showed his hand here >>12067273 and every response after that is just fruitless and taking the bait.
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 02:43:49 2020 No.12069137 >>12068667He thinks he's smart because he probably hard of flaws of IEE 754, little did that nigger know that integer addition is exact and floating point rounding errors are irrelevant, because math oriented software uses infinitely accurate floats written in software while small inaccuracies make no difference for everything else.
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 02:54:35 2020 No.12069151 File: 407 KB, 498x474, tenor.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>12067265>PhD student @Harvard| Benevolent Leader and Most High Statistician of the #StatsClub | Flag of St. Kitts & Nevis>Most High Statisticianyeah first 2/3 sounds about right, tho last 1/3 is debatable.
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 02:56:09 2020 No.12069157 File: 1.25 MB, 642x767, dbd9gyy-23b5f8fe-4f09-4598-a61a-3d06d2b5c0b4.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>12069151What is here to debate?
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 02:57:13 2020 No.12069159 >>12069157the part about statistician.
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 03:06:09 2020 No.12069170 >>12069159But statistics are almost always misrepresented to the point where if you aren't reading original paper, its guaranteed to be attempt to deceive, I see nothing that doesn't add up.
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 03:10:09 2020 No.12069174 >>120672652+2=4-1=3
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 03:10:21 2020 No.12069175 >>12067762Extremely based
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 03:17:21 2020 No.12069186 It's easy. Just add one 'dark number'. Now you're doing math like a physicist!
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 03:32:48 2020 No.12069213 No way in hell i'm gonna waste time reading a pseudointellectual paper on why some people think 2+2=5, hint they're fucking stupid.
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 03:36:45 2020 No.12069220 >>12067265Americans are just now learning about history of arithmetic.Not sure to laugh or cry.
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 03:57:04 2020 No.12069237 >>12067410or simply stating that 5 is the symbol for this ●●●●
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 04:20:11 2020 No.12069268 >>12067685Except that both of those cases can be perfectly fitted into the framework of mathematics, like even you do when making your point by subtracting or adding an apple a propos. The fact that some of these actions may be unknown to the data analyst does not mean there is an issue with the framework, but instead, points to some underlying mechanism that may produce a type of noise on your data. The point that's being made by the 2+2=5 crowd is obviously that numbers aren't always the best way to be talking about reality as they like to bring up IQ and things like that. But there is no reason to pin this on the fundamental logic of mathematics, instead, critisism should be leveraged against mainly the (soft) sciences (I think we can all agree that physics and chemistry rely a lot on mathematics in a justified way).Saying 2+2=5 therefore makes you look dumb in my opinion because you're attacking the wrong subject, when you could have just said that "numbers do not always reflect reality perfectly" which is a much more subtle and meaningful phrase.
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 04:35:45 2020 No.12069286 File: 43 KB, 800x333, Principia_Mathematica_54-43.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>12069268If you get noise in a form of 2+2=5, its literally a logical error, you don't just sit here and say "haha yes, 2+2 is 5 now", retard. You figure out where extra 1 came from. In fact, you already fucking know that extra 1 came from somewhere, so you know that it really was 2+2+1=5, because it literally has to be, that's how trivial arithmetic works, you ape.The fact that you're fucking retard who missed 1 in real world doesn't mean that you can remove it and claim 2 + 2 = 5, by the way, if you don't understand what's written in this image, just stop talking. Thank you.
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 04:40:41 2020 No.12069289 >>12069286>repeat litterally what I saidI wasn't even pleading for 2+2=5, learn to read faggot.
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 04:48:04 2020 No.12069298 >>12069289>The point that's being made by the 2+2=5 crowd is obviously that numbers aren't always the best way to be talking about realityYou acknowledged a fallacy.
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 04:50:28 2020 No.12069302 File: 25 KB, 120x119, 619246609192058936.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>12069298>to point out an argument = to agree withhere's your (you)
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 04:53:39 2020 No.12069309 File: 72 KB, 1013x789, math.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>12069302It's not even an argument, just fallacious statement. You called it an argument, which is fallacious on its own. You're actually more retarded than them, good job.
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 04:53:51 2020 No.12069310 >>12067265Looks like a typical bait post which I've seen plenty on 4chan. He invented his own nigerian number symbolic system, wrote a slightly undetailed title to confuse masses, and let it go wild in twitterscape. You argue that with arabic digits it's impossible, he argues that with nigerian digits it's the only truth.Don't feed the troll, i guess? You never learn.
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 04:56:28 2020 No.12069312 >>12069310Oh it is actually full-blown niggerian math that redefines nature of arithmetic operations. Again, same thing.
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 04:56:47 2020 No.12069315 File: 216 KB, 181x179, 1596719443692.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>12069309>semantics and name callingYou're about to win this epic battle! Keep going!
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 04:57:56 2020 No.12069316 File: 393 KB, 768x771, screen-shot-2020-08-07-at-1-50-59-pm-1596822690.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >it all leads back to "niggers aren't really stupid or violent, stop believing accurate statistics bigots"lmao
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 04:59:25 2020 No.12069318 >>12069315>semantics don't matter>thinks he has a say in any mathematical topic at all
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 05:00:54 2020 No.12069321 File: 51 KB, 576x312, 2020-08-31 10.59.55.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >blackemathician humor
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 05:02:37 2020 No.12069326 File: 54 KB, 607x428, 1598449364362.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>12069318You do realise you're not even responding to the same person anymore I hope
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 05:03:59 2020 No.12069329 >>12069326>samefagposter pretending that anyone cares about him and that I'm actually disagreeing with 50 people right now
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 05:05:36 2020 No.12069333 File: 16 KB, 469x311, 15154145148794561654.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>12069329Ah, darn, you got me. Well, that sucks man, I was really hoping you'd fall for that one!
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 05:08:31 2020 No.12069339 >>12069316Ex falso quodlibet
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 05:11:21 2020 No.12069341 >>120677532.4999... = 2.5 because 0.999... = 1.
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 05:15:07 2020 No.12069345 >>12068640Wait til she finds out that those numerical concepts were developed by Indians and Persians before reaching Europe
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 05:21:32 2020 No.12069354 >>12067685>4 is an assumption, not really the answer. if the box has a hole in it and an apple fell out then the answer will be 3Then that would be 4 - 1>if someone added an apple into the box when youre about to answer then it will be 5.Then that would be 4 + 1 but you answered too early
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 05:21:38 2020 No.12069355 >>12067265Based black mathematician
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 05:29:00 2020 No.12069364 File: 145 KB, 587x498, 2020-08-31 11.28.07.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >this is what Harvard produces now
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 05:46:32 2020 No.12069391 >>12068667that he's a brainlet who has no idea how computer work>>12069137IEEE-754 floating point 1+1=2 is also accurate because how could you mess this up, the mantissa is all zeroes
 >> El Arcón Mon Aug 31 05:47:22 2020 No.12069393 >How did it get to this point?we allowed too many women in STEM, duh
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 05:52:16 2020 No.12069397 >>12068361>read some book about 2+2why would you even bother to think, let alone read, about such bullshit? Convincing yourself one way or the other or being able to parrot arguments is pointless. Just use mathematics to do actually useful things instead of pseudo-philosophical garbage about "hurr do math exist does numbers real if our minds aren't real".
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 05:59:11 2020 No.12069403 File: 86 KB, 500x496, external-content.duckduckgo.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>12069393it's not just stem. the mistake was letting them out of the kitchen. it was all just a row of falling civilization's pillars from from there like dominoes. if a man can't put his foot down and put the bitch in her place it's over for him. when the collective of men fail to do this it's the end of the line for that civilization. but a new one can arise from it' ashes eventually. the only question is can we avoid getting burned?
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 06:06:08 2020 No.12069410 >>12069390To sum this up:He made his own math for the sake of having his own math. If we use publicly agreed abstractions, he's wrong, however he uses his own abstractions, which means he's right in his own math. Good for him.Where he is truly wrong is his own advice to "ask explicitly why people think 2+2=5 and not branding them as retards". Consider the one who says "2+2=5" as A, and the one who asks explicitly "why?" as B. As A makes a claim and B gives a question, now A has to perform a CONVERSION, to either align with universal generic math, or to align with B's thought process. But does A have a conversion methods for B's thought process? Never seen telepathy before, if you ask me, although massive collaborative experience can help align some thoughts. Not a very trustworthy mechanism, by the way.No, to totally avoid incompatibility, A have to perform a conversion to universal math, and then inform B. There is so much redundancy, it's actually hilarious, considering what we do in math is mostly simplification and generalization.
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 06:14:11 2020 No.12069421 >>12069364The more I look at this the angrier I get.
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 06:19:10 2020 No.12069425 he's absolutely wrong but you could be more patient and more intelligent by politely refuting all nonsense he writes. The other good option is to ignore this. Getting angry enough to throw insults at twitter is actually doing him a favor.
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 06:44:10 2020 No.12069444 >>12069364"data analyst" of course he is
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 07:13:08 2020 No.12069492 >>12069410Made his own math???Can we see the axioms and his definition of summation then?In what world is it even consistent?If its not, its not even close to being related to math at all.We have polar coordinates, and then we have cartesian coordinates, they can coexist because actual mathematicians clearly defined what they are. 2+2 = 5 isn't a definition, because I don't know what 5 - 2 is in this retarded "custom math".It's not even consistent with itself.
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 08:57:29 2020 No.12069684 >>12069410Seriously? Is that all there is to this? I thought maybe he was trying to make some esoteric point worth considering, but you have saved me wasting the time of looking it up.This is worse than just fucking retarded. Christ, even the flat earthers have more intellectual integrity.
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 10:45:14 2020 No.12069908 >>12069410I disagree that this sort of redundancy is bad. It's often helpful in mathematics to describe the same object in multiple ways, rather than framing everything in terms of a single "universal" example, since different terminology is sometimes helpful for elucidating different results.For instance, to a geometer the hyperbolic plane may be viewed as the interior of a half-plane, that of a ball, that of a codimension 1 hyperboloid, etc. All of these are isometric, yet we don't demand a standard model and require that everybody frames all discussion in the language of that model.For another example, note that $\operatorname{Spec}$ is a equivalence between (the opposite category of) the commutative rings and the category of affine schemes. Yet it's often valid and informative to refer to an affine scheme as an affine scheme, rather than talking exclusively of the relatively more standard idea of the associated commutative ring.It's necessary at time of creation of any notation that one defines what they mean well, and it's best that they relate their notation to other equivalent notations if possible. This doesn't make the redundancy of multiple competing notations a bad thing.
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 10:54:05 2020 No.12069925 >>12069403>this is what m*les actually believeImagine being capable of such delusional self-importance, just imagine...
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 11:25:40 2020 No.12069999 So this is what the 21st century will consist of, the tangent of delusional rationalism which will only intensify until it turns into a socdem-flavored religion where any objection is met by racist accusations and deplatforming because questioning that specific flavor of rationalist delusion, or worse, asking for an empirical proof, is surely racist since a PoC came up with it and you're obviously trying to discredit him/her/xer/them.Might as well just buy a house in Northern Scandinavia and forget that humanity exists.
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 12:46:06 2020 No.12070314 >>12067707This
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 12:47:08 2020 No.12070320 >>12067792ThisHumanities departments were a mistake
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 12:48:10 2020 No.12070324 >>12068221kek
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 12:50:54 2020 No.12070333 >>12067960This is the most insane avoidance and non-sequitur I have ever seen.2 + 2 = 4If it did not then the most basic manifestation of logic that drives our technology would be in of itself redundant and baseless.The application of this principle varying due to other variables cannot erase the base logic of this expression of basic logic regardless of which philosophical musing one may care to construct
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 12:51:59 2020 No.12070338 >>12067996Don't you dare group them in with us lefists.Retarded liberal kids from comfirtable families have shat everything
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 12:53:06 2020 No.12070344 >>12068029Is this the equivalent of>If your auntie had balls she'd be your uncle
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 12:54:07 2020 No.12070349 >>12068088>tropical semiringThe West Indies?
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 12:55:37 2020 No.12070355 >>12067931Define 2Define 5Define the logic of additionOutside of any variables, 2 + 2 must = 4
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 12:57:27 2020 No.12070360 >>12068039Top lad.Simply extracting non-linear definitions of logically consistent logic in maths does not disprove the logical basis of those definitions.
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 13:00:21 2020 No.12070370 >>12070355I did; the definition is given by the image of the naturals in whatever semiring you're using.
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 13:01:46 2020 No.12070374 >>12070370Oh, also: yes 2+2=4 in any semiring; this does not contradict that 2+2=5, as some semiringz satisfy 4=5.
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 13:01:56 2020 No.12070375 >>12070370Outside of any additional concept of a semiring or notation or acrobatics, does >2+2 = 4?If it does not, why not?
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 13:06:41 2020 No.12070395 >>12067265Carr's point is valid but not in the way that people here would look through to as they froth on rage.He's not saying 2 + 2 = 5 or that 2 + 2 doe not = 4The article shows him explaining how narrow reading of data can ruin humanity by simpletons not understanding context of application and hiding behind stats and data.You see this all the time in the battles in Sport over players styles and performance.Anyone that has worked in larger managerial twat companies can attest to this.
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 13:18:43 2020 No.12070446 File: 144 KB, 618x597, 1590721218806.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 13:27:15 2020 No.12070469 >>12069908there's nothing useful about his abstractions
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 13:33:35 2020 No.12070489 >>12069999Somalis and Syrians will be running that joint soon enough. I think I'll move to China and be one of those white male props
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 13:38:49 2020 No.12070505 >>12070375The concept of a semiring is not always "additional," and there's no reason to assume somebody is always working in $\mathbb{N}$. This would be clear if you were knowledgeable in modern algebra.
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 13:38:54 2020 No.12070506 >>12070395>The article shows him explaining how narrow reading of data can ruin humanity by simpletons not understanding context of application and hiding behind stats and data.And he explains that by wilfully misleading simpletons?
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 13:39:14 2020 No.12070508 File: 127 KB, 757x1189, bidenbear.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>12070446cheer up kid
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 13:40:26 2020 No.12070514 >>12070508boomer meme
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 13:42:39 2020 No.12070521 >>12070506Maybe he is positing the ultra opposite?/pol/is full of it to be fair.And yes, the new liberal humanities academics are insane.
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 13:44:47 2020 No.12070528 >>12067440sociopaths like to act like victims whilst committing acts of evil
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 13:57:46 2020 No.12070569 >>12069999based quads
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 14:05:38 2020 No.12070595 >>12070514the blue boomer bear will defeat the orange
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 14:57:15 2020 No.12070727 >>12067818Formalism is a disease.
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 15:09:58 2020 No.12070759 File: 25 KB, 256x256, WHVnUDVPMnGU4yAm2ZkG_Xf7-uRR8ca4WZAmktLei5Q.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>12067685>4 is an assumption, not really the answer.No, it's the answer>if the box has a hole in it and an apple fell out then the answer will be 3.Because it is now 2+2-1>if someone added an apple into the box when youre about to answer then it will be 5.Because it is now 2+2+1Neither of those scenarios are 2+2
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 15:28:57 2020 No.12070824 >>12067265just wait until they find out that 1 + 2 + 3 + ... = -1/12
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 15:29:28 2020 No.12070825 >>12070824basedlmao
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 15:30:53 2020 No.12070830 File: 56 KB, 682x342, 2+2=4 slogan.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 15:36:36 2020 No.12070855 >>12067265I have no idea how we got here but these people are very easy to disprove without writing big paragraphs. Basically this seems like an excuse to be lazy by leaving variables out of the equation>rooster and a hen exampleif you put a rooster and a hen together and latter when you come back in a year there are 3 animals all together then that wouldnt be 1+1=3. it would be something like 2+x=y where x is the number of years. That is assuming the rooster and hen have a baby every year. putting in 1+1=3 is just lazy>2 factories with 1 and half of a machinethis is the easiest to disprove. its 1.5+1.5=3 not 1+1=3. again lazy.>the cubes in >>12069364this isnt really a math problem is it? IDK pretty sure this could be 1.25*4
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 15:39:37 2020 No.12070866 >>12069364>lol just redefine "5" to mean "4"This is the sort of retarded shit you get from diversity being unnaturally injected into STEM.
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 15:42:13 2020 No.12070875 >>12070830epic
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 15:51:14 2020 No.12070914 >>12070830[eqn]2+2=4,~brother[/eqn]
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 15:51:51 2020 No.12070917 >>12068647Does that mean water is not actually composed of 1 hydrogen atom and 2 oxygen atoms, but one oxygen and one hydrogen atom?
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 15:58:09 2020 No.12070945 File: 2 KB, 93x125, 1598900545698s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] Newton confirmed for rapist
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 15:58:43 2020 No.12070950 >>12067818Who would've thought I'd find my former programming professor tweet on a thai basket weaving forum
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 16:08:12 2020 No.12070984 >>12067749In a base 4 or higher number system that makes sense anyway. The PhD nigger is just late to the game in realizing that yes, our number system is arbitrary, but couldn't wait to write his little opinion piece and misinform everyone before understanding that not all numbering systems are equal nor useful.I suppose what we have here is a clear cut case of knowing vs understanding, unfortunately coupled with a prominent platform of authority.
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 16:10:34 2020 No.12070995 >>12068647...and yet the computer/calculator still spits back "2"...
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 16:11:56 2020 No.12070999 >>12067440The jew cries out in pain as he strikes you.
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 16:12:14 2020 No.12071001 >>12070917Can't you see the limitless possibilities?? We could've had free energy this whole time if we weren't using whiteys numbering system
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 16:13:31 2020 No.12071003 >>12070727>It's bad when mathematics is rigorous
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 16:16:04 2020 No.12071012 >>12070395>>12067265Isn't it than more appropriate to say "2 + 2 + (literal "X" factor) = 5"?
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 16:16:09 2020 No.12071013 Imagine how much less /pol/ shit would be posted here if there was a requirement that you have a basic understanding of mathematics
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 16:18:36 2020 No.12071023 >>12067265Whoever wrote this, do humanity a favor and find a cliff and walk towards it, and when you have 4 steps left to the edge, take a 5th.
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 16:22:57 2020 No.12071042 >>12071013You mean like knowing that 2+2 equals 4?
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 16:27:31 2020 No.12071067 >>12071012>>12067265you guys aren't accounting for dark numbers
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 16:29:29 2020 No.12071078 >>12071023based, nice
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 16:40:55 2020 No.12071125 File: 91 KB, 537x535, 1562437353098.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>12071042[eqn]2+2=22[/eqn]
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 19:24:43 2020 No.12071678 >>12067762100% fully based! (Exactly what I would have posted).
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 19:52:25 2020 No.12071749 >>12071023Pleading the fif
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 20:03:18 2020 No.12071769 >>12071012no, literal math is racist.
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 20:05:07 2020 No.12071770 >>12067641II + II = IIII
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 20:21:07 2020 No.12071825 To me it seems like the point he's trying to make is that whether or not a statement is true in your system of mathematical logic depends on what axioms you have chosen to define that system. Maybe not as profound a point as he seems to think it is, but not that controversial either.
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 20:47:49 2020 No.12071888 >>12067886>implying niggers are men
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 21:00:15 2020 No.12071910 >>12067265>How did it get to this point?Sane people continually backing down and not opposing the insane.
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 21:05:44 2020 No.12071921 File: 2.00 MB, 3800x3800, jewfunding.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 21:11:07 2020 No.12071936 >>12067394the universal truth is in fact, more has been done for the average American citizen under Trump than any president in the last 20 years and that more could be done if his political opponents would stop feigning ignorance and funding riots.there's a sort of undeniable optimism these past few years that the other side seems hell bent on obfuscating through stupidity, fear and irrationality.
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 21:18:56 2020 No.12071957 >>12068259its bong hit philosophy. "why does 2+2=4""why cant it equal 7""intangible, abstraction!"the correct response is to just tell them numbers are a form of communication. my 2 + 2 can equal 4and your 2 + 2 can equal 5it makes no difference as long as we have the same amount at the end. like metric and imperial.it makes it harder to communicate when everybody is speaking different languages as you not only need to know the math but how to convert it to something people understand.
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 22:59:17 2020 No.12072163 >>12067265Did you actually read the article?It's nothing remotely controversial; they're just making the unremarkable point that sometimes numerical models don't accurately reflect the real world - basically a truism. It's not "cultural marxism" or "degeneracy", post-modernism or whatever trash buzzwords /pol/ has been filling your mind with recently.I've gotta say, if something this innocuous and inoffensive makes you seethe so hard you came to /sci/ to rant about it you'd probably better take a little break from the internet.
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 23:38:46 2020 No.12072226 >>12067265You know, whatever they try to do through handwaving and more info, there truly is only one canonical "+". Sure you could try chicken addition and the like, but your concept truly is no longer an abstraction or generalization and not to mention that you lose out on so many arithmetic properties such as associativity, commutativity, distributive with a multiplication, and inductive reasoning, Not to mention the definition of addition given may not be well defined. Yes, you could give multiple ways to use "+" in ways that seem similar to true "+", but only the canonical form of the operation is as good as it is and why it truly deserves the term "god-given".
 >> Anonymous Mon Aug 31 23:51:10 2020 No.12072246 >>12067265Why wasn't this article just that one Einstein quote "don't judge a nigga by his ability to read a book." I wasted thirty seconds of my life to skim the article and see that this wasn't even about math.
 >> Anonymous Tue Sep 1 00:19:43 2020 No.12072301 >>12068559On all fronts
 >> Anonymous Tue Sep 1 00:22:25 2020 No.12072308 >>12067265>Disingenuous faggots on twitterCall me when something noteworthy happens.
 >> Anonymous Tue Sep 1 00:26:23 2020 No.12072316 >>12067265Yeah I get that abstract algebra is a thing but posting about on twitter is a bad idea and misleads people that just accept what they read
 >> Anonymous Tue Sep 1 00:35:14 2020 No.12072334 >>12067440>say something retarded>cry when people tell you to fuck off
 >> Anonymous Tue Sep 1 00:35:37 2020 No.12072336 If 2+2 can equal anything I want it to be then can 2+2=NIGGER?
 >> Anonymous Tue Sep 1 00:36:40 2020 No.12072339 >>12072308Unfortunately some of those faggots on twitter hold influential positions in education. They are going to be teaching this shit to children.
 >> Anonymous Tue Sep 1 00:39:03 2020 No.12072341 >>12072339And collapse their own system? Good, an ideology based around endless abstraction and what-ifs is unsustainable.
 >> Anonymous Tue Sep 1 00:53:15 2020 No.12072371 >>12072341But lots of us live in that system. They are going to take us with them.
 >> Anonymous Tue Sep 1 01:10:20 2020 No.12072395 File: 25 KB, 270x345, 1502130544249.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>12067265wow I wonder who funds Harvard a real mystery for sure
 >> Anonymous Tue Sep 1 01:31:59 2020 No.12072437 File: 60 KB, 1024x913, 1592777616516.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
 >> Anonymous Tue Sep 1 01:34:45 2020 No.12072442 >>12072339the most influential teacher to children are other children. homeschool your kids and let them infect others with knowledge.
 >> Anonymous Tue Sep 1 01:39:01 2020 No.12072454 >>12067265>How did it get to this?This post is on /sci/, but the question and it's only real answer belong on /pol/.
 >> Anonymous Tue Sep 1 01:41:58 2020 No.12072463 File: 6 KB, 194x259, boomy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>12071770based
 >> Anonymous Tue Sep 1 01:46:32 2020 No.12072473 >>12067889>here are some real-world contexts>Kareem CarrAffirmative action strikes again. This is a stupid argument, because in almost every real world context 2+2=4. Unless additional information is given (ex, "2" is defined here as a symbol that isn't actually the numeral two but something else) 2+2 absolutely equals 4.This whole argument is the type of academic word salad that makes me suggest that Kareem is not only BLACK but possibly has a bit of the Hebrew strirring within.
 >> Anonymous Tue Sep 1 01:48:43 2020 No.12072477 This is the inevitable result of universal suffrage.
 >> Anonymous Tue Sep 1 01:51:09 2020 No.12072480 >>12072473(cont.) It would fall upon anyone stating "2+2=5" to provide additional information justifying the statment. If no such information is forthcoming, a reasonable response would be "2+2=4 and you are a retard".
 >> Anonymous Tue Sep 1 01:57:00 2020 No.12072492 >>120723362 joggers + 2 city blocks = 12 stolen bicycles
 >> Anonymous Tue Sep 1 02:00:59 2020 No.12072498 File: 18 KB, 558x614, 664.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>12067762Can someone explain to a brainlet how he gets the numbers 54, 26, 51, 231, 13, 11, 35 11, 52 involved in the addition of 1+1? I just mean what is the relevance of these numbers?
 >> Anonymous Tue Sep 1 02:50:14 2020 No.12072565 >>12067852You must understand that the main purpose of this tweet was to shill the program that counted the semi-rings, created by the tweet author.Quite typical of Andrej to try and exploit the public opinion like this.
 >> Anonymous Tue Sep 1 02:51:53 2020 No.12072566 >>12072498Those are references to other theorems in the book that are used in this proof.
 >> Anonymous Tue Sep 1 03:13:39 2020 No.12072608 >>12067265I really don't see why people are treating this like it is some sort of deep insight. Of course mathematics is at best a model of "the real world". But that doesn't mean the alternative models (where 2+2=5) are equally good. The justification given for this alternate model with these stories of particular functions with 2, 2 as input and 5 as output do not seem very convincing. It seems that 2+2=5 is added as an extra axiom on top of the existing natural numbers, but a consequence of that all natural numbers are equal (0 = 5 - 5 = (3+2) - (2+2) = 3 - 2 = 1, for example). This is a very poor model: why have equality at all when it doesn't provide any information whatsoever?Or if the desired outcome is that under some conditions 2+2=4 and 2+2=/=5 while under others 2+2=/=4 and 2+2=5, that begs the question how these conditions are to be modeled, and what we gain with this additional theory.The quality of models is completely ignored (there is even no attempt to claim that this is irrelevant), so I suppose >>12067394 is right, that this is just some relativist propaganda.
 >> Anonymous Tue Sep 1 03:16:33 2020 No.12072617 >>12072566thanks
 >> Anonymous Tue Sep 1 03:21:04 2020 No.12072632 >>12072608We can already model 2+2=5 easily, here's an insight>whoever wrote it is retarded.
 >> Anonymous Tue Sep 1 03:30:58 2020 No.12072657 What are the odds that none of these Pajeets even read this book before starting to larp?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principia_MathematicaIf you did, you already know where 2 + 2 = 4 comes from and why its objective and unfalsifiable in our model of mathematics, and there's no other relevant model that is consistent with itself.
 >> Anonymous Tue Sep 1 03:44:06 2020 No.12072688 >>12072657>talks about reading PM>complains about others larpinglolIn case you've actually read a significant portion of it, I don't know what to say. Why would you read this thing unless you are a foundations/history autist? Aren't there books which have distilled the useful ideas from this tome into more readable form by now?
 >> Anonymous Tue Sep 1 03:57:39 2020 No.12072709 >>12072688>more readableWhat's unreadable about trivial fundamentals of mathematics?And if you want to challenge things like 1 + 1 = 2 but don't want to read literally why it is like that, you're just a fucking pajeet larper.Cope and seethe brainlet.
 >> Anonymous Tue Sep 1 04:05:13 2020 No.12072726 >>12072709>What's unreadable about trivial fundamentals of mathematics?Ah, so you _are_ larping. Very well then, carry on.>And if you want to challenge things like 1 + 1 = 2 but don't want to read literally why it is like that, you're just a fucking pajeet larper.The only thing I'm challenging is your claim to have read PM, no more, no less.
 >> Anonymous Tue Sep 1 04:24:31 2020 No.12072762 >>12072726I did, and there's nothing unreadable about it.Looks like you're just too retarded to figure out the basics.
 >> Anonymous Tue Sep 1 05:06:06 2020 No.12072834 >>12072163>>12072608Did you read the article?This is a Harvard PhD working on his biomathematics disertation. He blatantly stated if you have 2 factories, each with 2 machines and each with half the parts to make another machine, than by adding them together you get 5 machines. Therefore 2+2=5.Do you not immediately see the retarded levels this fuck twat is at? He can't understand this isn't even an addition problem, it's a multiplication problem. If there were 3 factories, we'd have 7.5 machines, and his (consistent) argument would be 2.5+3=7.5.I am already at a fucking lose, but he keeps going. He accertains if you place a goose and a fox in a room and come back the next day, you'll only have a fox. Therefore 1+1=1. Why does he not include the -1 that happened?1+1-1=1. That's how numbers work. But this fucking retarded nigger is single handedly reducing my respect for the notion of diversity hires and affirmative action. Do you realize if this is what Harvard is promoting that we are all fucking worthy of a Harvard PhD? I have friends who didn't pass highschool algebra and can spot this dipshits inconsistencies.
 >> Anonymous Tue Sep 1 07:28:30 2020 No.12073097 >>12072834Damn, those answers/arguments remind me of the sort of concrete responses early intelligence researchers in the 19th and 20th centuries got from rural peasants to abstract/categorical questions. e.g., What does a fox and rabbit have in common? The fox hunts the rabbit vs. they're both mammals.
 >> Anonymous Tue Sep 1 09:20:00 2020 No.12073417 File: 56 KB, 645x588, +_abbe999d8d8655082206314b72a34bee.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
 >> Anonymous Tue Sep 1 10:31:08 2020 No.12073576 >>12072834Did you read my post? I already mentioned that the machine story was unconvincing and leads to all sorts of trouble if you attempt to generalize the operation to other numbers. I do agree that it is disappointing that Harvard seems to prioritize stories that uncritically spout convenient ideology over careful and critical analysis of their theories. Then again, this is hardly the first time institutions like that push thinly veiled ideological propaganda with nothing but their supposed credentials backing it up. Perhaps the difference lately is that the veil is getting thinner every time. I guess that no one gives a rats ass about looking at the truth or not misleading people nowadays. All I can do is hope that the worst of this bullshit stays contained in the USA.
 >> Anonymous Tue Sep 1 16:12:56 2020 No.12074467 >>12067762You don't even know what principia means you fucking retard. You know nothing about formal systems and higher order logics or else you'd understand the entire argument being made here in that you CAN construct a system where 2+2=5. Math is not objective truth, there is simply a system constructed from which we operate under. Please do a world a favor and take an abstract algebra course, you fucking retard undergrad.
>>