[ 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

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 734 KB, 1178x1188, Screen Shot 2020-08-30 at 1.56.11 PM.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12067265 No.12067265 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

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?

>> No.12067273
File: 125 KB, 1202x490, Screen Shot 2020-08-30 at 2.03.49 PM.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>> No.12067294

>How did it get to this point?

The long march through the institutions.

>> No.12067360

>Emojis in twitter name
Checks out

>> No.12067394
File: 108 KB, 642x756, yhamadtho.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

There 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.

>> No.12067395

It's amazing how lefties can write so much and say so little

>> 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.

>> No.12067412

>Twatter literally makes people dumber

>> No.12067440
File: 55 KB, 599x424, niggers.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.12067621

>twitter faggots are acting retarded again

>> No.12067641

>adding a fox to a hen

the 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")

>> No.12067644

>this is the power of black "scientists"
whoa really makes me think...

>> No.12067647
File: 54 KB, 720x405, 1 gt4xgjcXEmvOevAFLxoG8w.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

The 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.

>> No.12067648

2 factories + 2 factores = 5 machines

huh? do people not know what units are?

>> No.12067666

I thought this was just a meme about the whole being greater than the sum of it's parts.

>> No.12067677

It is, on purpose, to confuse and obfuscate and yes, demoralize.
"How did it come to this".

>> No.12067683
File: 786 KB, 1000x1105, 1593925289547.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.12067685

2 plus 2 equals 5 is the abstraction of information confirmation
2 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.

>> No.12067690

This so much. So many fucking retards here lately.

>> No.12067694

I'm pretty sure it was first used to describe synergy but okay.

>> No.12067698

Well, they're not Western, and this idiocy seems to be a Western disease. Substitute it with India if that makes you feel better.

>> No.12067707

The first scenario in your post is 2 + 2 - 1 = 3.
The second is 1 + 2 +2 = 5.

>> No.12067711


Kareem 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.

>> No.12067749

>the point is generally correct
It’s not.
>2+2 = whatever the fuck you want it to be
No, 2 + 2 = 4.
>3 + 3 = whatever the fuck you want it to be
No, 3 + 3 = 6.

>> No.12067750

>I get the argument being made here
There is none.

>> No.12067753

2.4999... rounds to 2
2.4999... rounds to 2
2.4999...+2.4999... = 4.999... = 5

>> No.12067757
File: 41 KB, 550x400, 9232CBB6-DADE-4992-9050-844AB2785FDD.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>This so much.

>> No.12067762
File: 19 KB, 500x208, Principia_Mathematica_54-43.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

If you can't read this you aren't in position to tell us what 2 + 2 is, nigger.

>> No.12067763

Anyone here who thinks 2 + 2 = 5 (e.g. you) is guaranteed to be a retard.

>> No.12067768

This 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.

>> No.12067776


haha funny maymay

>> No.12067785 [DELETED] 

>2 apples and 2 apples added to a box results in how many apples in the box?
4 apples.
>4 is an assumption, not really the answer.
Yes it is.
>if the box has a hole in it and an apple fell out then the answer will be 3.
That’s not the answer to the previous question, you stupid donkey. It’s the answer to a DIFFERENT question, namely what happens if you add 2 apples to 2 apples and then remove 1 apple, i.e. 2 + 2 - 1 = 3.
>if someone added an apple into the box when youre about to answer then it will be 5.
That’s not the answer to the previous question, you shit-flinging orangutan. It’s the answer to a DIFFERENT question, namely what happens if you add 2 apples to 2 apples and then add 1 apple, i.e. 2 + 2 + 1 = 3.

Kill yourself asap.

>> No.12067792

>2 apples and 2 apples added to a box results in how many apples in the box?
4 apples.
>4 is an assumption, not really the answer.
Yes it is.
>if the box has a hole in it and an apple fell out then the answer will be 3.
That’s not the answer to the previous question, you stupid donkey. It’s the answer to a DIFFERENT question, namely what happens if you add 2 apples to 2 apples and then remove 1 apple, i.e. 2 + 2 - 1 = 3.
>if someone added an apple into the box when youre about to answer then it will be 5.
That’s not the answer to the previous question, you shit-flinging orangutan. It’s the answer to a DIFFERENT question, namely what happens if you add 2 apples to 2 apples and then add 1 apple, i.e. 2 + 2 + 1 = 5.

Kill yourself asap.

>> No.12067802

>How did it get to this point?
Critical Theory has infected academia like airborne AIDS.

>> No.12067818

https://twitter.com/andrejbauer/status/1296555230184837122 almost of 80% of all commutative unital semirings of size at most 6 satisfy 2+2=5

>> No.12067837

yes, 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 history

even 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

>> No.12067839
File: 28 KB, 595x591, 1570729584013.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.12067852

None 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.

>> No.12067859

What is the actual argument being made here? I'm not going to read their stupid paper.

>> No.12067860

dumb fuck, 2+2=5 up to permutation on the set of integers

>> No.12067862

Incels 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.

>> No.12067871

Nobody saying 2+2=5 is talking either about apples or [math]\mathbb{N}[/math] though; given that [math]\mathbb{N}[/math] is the initial semiring, it's totally reasonable to refer to the image of [math]n \in \mathbb{N}[/math] as an element of an arbitrary semiring, exactly the way one does in the rest of algebra.

>> No.12067880

read the thread I linked.

>> No.12067886

The main moron pushing this is a man.

>> No.12067889

Kareem 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.

>> No.12067895

Sorry, I blacklisted twitter on my home network and my DNS server is in basement, I'm lazy to, can you link to something relevant?

>> No.12067896

>Nobody saying 2+2=5 is talking either about apples or ℕ
Yes, they are. >>12067685 The twattertards also talk about real-world examples with apples and chickens.
>given that ℕ is the initial semiring
It satisfies 2 + 2 = 4. You do know that, right?
> the image of n∈ℕ
Image under what?

>> No.12067902

>Nobody saying 2+2=5 is talking either about apples or N
they literally are, you illiterate retard

>> No.12067906

>there are some real-world contexts in which the most convenient associated mathematical model satisfies 2+2=5
Name one.

>> No.12067915

see >>12067852

>> No.12067931

by "the image of [math]n \in \mathbb{N}[/math] in an arbitrary semiring [math]R[/math]" I mean the image under the morphism [math]\mathbb{N} \rightarrow R [/math].

fair, 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.

>> No.12067936

>I mean the image under the morphism
And what does that have to do with my post? What are you saying?

>> No.12067941

>in which this is true
It isn’t. You are confusing use and mention. It’s like saying true is false by redefining false.

>> No.12067947

>That being said, I do think that the "1+1=3 because chickens" thing is more or less valid
How 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.

>> No.12067952

>there exist models that might be useful where the notation 2+2=5 is valid
There aren’t. Refer to my tropical semiring example.

>> No.12067960

Turns 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 [math]n+m[/math] to denote, for two separate populations of size [math]n[/math] and [math]m[/math], the population size resulting from mixing the populations in a pen and allowing a single gestation period. Then, [math]2+2=5[/math].

>> No.12067967

you know, tropical geometry is sometimes considered useful or interesting

>> No.12067973


>> No.12067976

If egg is a chicken, then 2 + 2 + 1 = 5, if not, 2 + 2 = 4, there's no other way moron.

>> No.12067981

You didn’t understand what I said. Take a breather and read it again.

>> No.12067983

So 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.

>> No.12067996

>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.

>> No.12068010

>So 2,2,5,+,= all are frequently used in reference to elements, operations, or equality in an arbitrary semiring
Name one where 2 + 2 is not 4 and justify the use of the symbol + as opposed to any other symbol. You can't.

>> No.12068026

>justify the use of the symbol + as opposed to any other symbol
oh so we're allowed to have 2x2=5 but the + symbol is Illegal for use in that context lel kek lmao ahaha

>> No.12068029

This is literally how mathematics works. To use an example that another poster used, in the tropical semiring [math](\mathbb{R} \cup \{-\infty},\text{max}, +)[/math], the "multiplication" is given by traditional addition on [math]\mathbb{R}[/math]. 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 [math]-\infty[/math].

>> No.12068030

So 0 + 0 = 1 according to your idiotic notation
Nice "addition" fuckface

>> No.12068039

>oh so we're allowed to have 2x2=5
Where did I say that, you mouthbreathing retard?

>> No.12068047

That 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.

>> No.12068053

And it was in the natural numbers, not the reals. Lrn2read.

>> No.12068071
File: 87 KB, 386x622, Ef5jG1oXgAIuTPq.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

This 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.

>> No.12068080

I'm making a prediction right now

>Liberal media discovers modular arithmetic

>2+2=1 too!!!

fucking retards

>> No.12068088

Right, I switched to the tropical semiring, rather than the sub-semiring on [math]\mathbb{N}[/math] 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

>> No.12068104
File: 265 KB, 747x525, 1598742401923.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

When 2 liberals meet, [eqn]1+1=3[/eqn]

>> No.12068121

>Nobody saying 2+2=5 is talking either about apples or N
>That being said, I do think that the "1+1=3 because chickens" thing is more or less valid
Nice backpedaling you dishonest turd

>> No.12068142

When 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 [math]\mathbb{N}[/math].

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.

>> No.12068151

>Again, the notation 2+2=2 is customary
It isn’t, you liar and/or dunce. The customary notation used is [math]\oplus[/math], PRECISELY to distinguish it from ordinary addition, which is denoted by +.

Again, stop blabbering about things you don’t understand.

>> No.12068160

>nobody is saying that if you put two piles of two apples together, you get 5 apples
they literally are though. have you even looked at these threads?

>> No.12068165

Are 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.

>> 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 drumpftard
>2+2=5 if by 5 I mean 4 :^)

>> No.12068170

>This is not controversial among math people
The claim that 2 + 2 = 5 is indeed “controversial” among most math people.

>> No.12068180

Top tier bait

>> No.12068181

>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.

>> No.12068189

Granted 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.

>> No.12068194

>still confusing use and mention
not gonna make it

>> No.12068196


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.

>> No.12068203

If 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.

>> No.12068221
File: 121 KB, 305x192, uwot.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Fook you, you known what:


Fight me.

>> No.12068230

I 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.

>> No.12068242

Guys. GUYS. Listen up. Important announcement. I've solved the Riemann hypothesis by redefining it as the Pythagorean theorem.

>> No.12068256

The 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.

>> No.12068259

it 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

>> No.12068263

>STILL confusing use and mention
please read

>> No.12068268


>> No.12068271


>> No.12068280
File: 1.15 MB, 220x165, 068F235E-F132-4172-9850-AD30CD14B6DB.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.12068287

Never use the words 'scapegoat', 'jews' and 'boogeyman' in the same sentence ever again. It is tiresome, overused and indicates what a brainlet you are.

>> No.12068289

meant for this funny lad >>12068256

>> No.12068296

Yeah no need to condescend. There exists a convention pretty standard among algebraists that [math](R,+,\cdot)[/math] may refer to a semiring, and that the image of [math]n \in \mathbb{N}[/math] in [math]R[/math] under the canonical morphism [math]\mathbb{N} \rightarrow R[/math] is referred to simply as [math]n \in R[/math]. The "2+2=5 is simply wrong" folks are shunning the existing naming conventions for semirings.

>> No.12068305

Are you capable of reading? This >>12068151 is the convention that is actually used, in order to avoid confusion.

>> No.12068312

>are shunning the existing naming conventions for semirings
No they aren't, you liar or ignoramus. They're UPHOLDING the standard convention, which is >>12068151.

>> No.12068320

>2.5 +2.5 = 5


>> No.12068323

I'm talking about an arbitrary semiring, not the tropical semiring in particular.

I already linked wikipedia. Maybe nlab? https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/rig

>> No.12068324

It's just garden variety institutional decay brought about by demagoguery. It plays itself out in many late stage empires.

>> 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 true
Why do people think they sound smart for saying this?

>> No.12068336

I 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.

>> No.12068338
File: 56 KB, 753x499, 48epdy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Shut the fuck up

>> No.12068347

I 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?

>> No.12068352

Yes, but when somebody says "[math]n^{-1}[/math] for [math]n[/math] an element of a monoid [math]M[/math]", 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.

>> No.12068361

LOL this thread is full of retards. All you people should read "where mathematics comes from" instead of spouting platonist bullshit

>> 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.

>> No.12068368

>still beating the dead horse
There’s no reason for you to try to “save face” here, you know. This is an anonymous forum.

>> No.12068369

>twitter thread turned into article turned into tweet turned into 4chan thread
go develop schizophrenia, maybe you'll write something interesting

>> No.12068372

Most logicians *and* philosophers of math are platonists.

>> No.12068375

Kind of projecting on the need to "save face" but ok

>> No.12068391

I’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.

>> No.12068409

"most logicians and philosophers", that's just an argument by anonymous authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word
Who 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)

>> No.12068410

This is only confusing because you don't understand it as well as most algebraists do.

>> No.12068418

>To respond to this statement by saying that it's wrong
So 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.

>> No.12068424

What 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.

>> No.12068425

The statement I'm referring to is "there exists a semiring in which 2+2=2"

>> No.12068433

You don't seem to understand that it's customary to refer to an arbitrary semiring as [math](R,+,\cdot)[/math], and statements about existence of a semiring satisfying an algebraic condition need not be expressed in the notation [math](\mathbb{N},\text{max},+)[/math] to have your semiring come as a valid example.

>> No.12068435

why are leftists so fucking stupid and insane?
it's getting concerning at this point.

>> No.12068439

We are talking about notation. It is not customary to denote maximum by + (as opposed to [math]\oplus[/math]) in the tropical semiring.

>> No.12068444

You have to be trolling.

>> No.12068446

This is why they clamp.

>> No.12068447

the idiotic choice of notation is exactly what's being discussed, as stated in the second sentence of >>12068151

>> No.12068448

Take a look for yourself, retard.

>> No.12068450

Do 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?

>> No.12068452

You're not understanding what I'm saying. Reread >>12068433

>> No.12068454

Your 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).

>> No.12068455

Read the rest of the post too

>> No.12068459

I did, but thanks for wasting everyone’s time again by deflecting.

>> No.12068462

If you read the rest of the post then you'd understand that I already responded to what you're saying.

>> No.12068463

>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?

>> No.12068475

read the sentence slowly

when 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.

>> No.12068486

>for it to be good notation
Yes it does.

>> No.12068492

so 1 + 0 = 0 is good notation, in your estimation? fucking retard

>> No.12068495

So for instance would you say "there exists a semiring [math](R,+,\cdot)[/math] such that the monoid (R,+) is idempotent" is bad notation if you're secretly thinking of the tropical semiring when you write that?

>> No.12068503

rip should have been linking this >>12068486

>> No.12068511

No, 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 meaning
What’s so hard to get about this? Why do you insist on idiotic notation?

>> No.12068517



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!

>> No.12068518

Ok so then reread >>12068433 one more time, and recall that 2 and 5 have a canonical meanings as elements of an arbitrary semiring.

>> No.12068545

>2 and 5 have a canonical meanings as elements of an arbitrary semiring
First 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.

>> No.12068546

Fabian Society something or other.

>> No.12068559
File: 703 KB, 245x184, pure seething anger.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

This whole fiasco reminds me of that small movie. What a clown world we have become. It sickens me.

>> No.12068576

how does that address the point that + denotes addition when seated between numerals?

>> No.12068580

In this semiring, the multiplicative unit is given by [math]\{\varepsilon\}[/math], where [math]\varepsilon[/math] is the empty string. Since this semiring is idempotent, one might say that [math] n = 1[/math] for all [math] n \in \left\{1,2,3,\dots\right\} \subset R[/math] (for R the semiring); again, this is not all that unusual if you're in an algebraic context where you're relating [math]R[/math] 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.

>> No.12068585

For an example of where this isn't true, see [math]\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}[/math].

>> No.12068589

(assuming "addition" refers to addition of natural numbers).

>> No.12068604

so your choice of notation is to say that 2 = 5?

>> No.12068611

where it's understood that [math]2,5 \in R[/math] yes, this is standard in algebra.

>> No.12068613

>It is not the case that numerals are used uniquely to represent the natural numbers
Natural numbers are precisely what the Twattertards are referring to, hence we're discussing + *in the context of natural numbers*.

>> No.12068617

It'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.

>> No.12068621

they're not though? Not the mathematicians I've seen talking on the subject

>> No.12068625

That’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.

>> No.12068630

>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?

>> No.12068640
File: 88 KB, 1204x694, ED5E0488-84E9-495E-98DA-4035F83E5F83.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

why don't we just gas these "people" already?

>> No.12068644

The "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

>> No.12068647
File: 103 KB, 828x727, A420725B-88BF-4022-AAC6-F03F5909F484.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.12068651

>are also often talking about models which aren't really the natural numbers in an intuitive sense
Wrong. They’re talking about counting objects, i.e. natural numbers. Not surprising that you’re trying to defend their idiocy, though.

>> No.12068654

>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
There’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.

>> No.12068656

**Proposition.** If [math](R,+)[/math] is an idempotent monoid, then [math]n = 1[/math] for [math] n \in \{1,2,\dots\} [/math].

Since there exists an idempotent semiring [math](R,+,\cdot)[/math], there exists a semiring [math] R [/math] wherein [math] 2 + 2 = 5 [/math].

The point of me repeating this is to demonstrate the value of abstraction.

>> No.12068666

An 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.

>> No.12068667
File: 84 KB, 640x640, thinking cat.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>"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 computers
what the actual fuck did he mean by this

>> No.12068669

do you view everything from this "me vs them, everybody who doesn't agree with me must agree with them" lens?

>> No.12068670

>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.

>> No.12068674

Do you? Because that would explain why you're so insistent on defending obviously false statements about counting.

>> No.12068676

>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

>> No.12068682

You 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).

>> No.12068687

Again, 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 that
sounds like me just totally defending them? I called their ideas vague twice in the same sentence.

>> No.12068696

But they're not saying "1.8 apples or 2.2 apples", are they? They're saying "2 apples".

>> No.12068699
File: 3.14 MB, 2493x2398, FieldsMedalFront.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

this anon will win the big one for sure

>> No.12068700

>if the box has a hole in it and an apple fell out then the answer will be 3
That'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 = 5

None of those are 2 + 2 = 5.

>> No.12068705
File: 19 KB, 409x393, don drink.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>The statement "true is false" needs to be qualified.

>> No.12068713


>> No.12068718
File: 39 KB, 649x489, 78539.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

who ever thought /sci/ troll math would be taken seriously

>> No.12068735

>even though I'm not wrong
sorry, you are seriously wrong if you think 2 apples plus 2 apples is 5 apples. like dead wrong.

>> No.12068775

>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.

>> No.12068776
File: 192 KB, 621x938, 1533580369110.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

2 dollars plus 2 dollars is 4 dollars. Anyone telling you otherwise is bullshitting you and probably trying to rip you off.

>> No.12068793

Kek. Spending time with his family made him so depressed that he lost all hope for the country.

>> No.12068805

It'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.

>> No.12068826

not quite hegelian axioms as foundations, but amusing and almost relevant

>> No.12068830

I 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.

>> No.12068837

Kek, look at the toddler in the background dressed just like him

>> No.12068849

Orwell also fucked us by accidentally convincing the Proles that they're members of the Outer Party.

>> No.12069011
File: 36 KB, 480x360, hqdefault.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>How did it get to this point?
runaway marxist subversion.

>> No.12069022


>> No.12069108

He just lies about what mathematicians do. He showed his hand here >>12067273 and every response after that is just fruitless and taking the bait.

>> No.12069137

He 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.

>> No.12069151
File: 407 KB, 498x474, tenor.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>PhD student @Harvard| Benevolent Leader and Most High Statistician of the #StatsClub | Flag of St. Kitts & Nevis
>Most High Statistician
yeah first 2/3 sounds about right, tho last 1/3 is debatable.

>> No.12069157
File: 1.25 MB, 642x767, dbd9gyy-23b5f8fe-4f09-4598-a61a-3d06d2b5c0b4.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

What is here to debate?

>> No.12069159

the part about statistician.

>> No.12069170

But 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.

>> No.12069174


>> No.12069175

Extremely based

>> No.12069186

It's easy. Just add one 'dark number'. Now you're doing math like a physicist!

>> 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.

>> No.12069220

Americans are just now learning about history of arithmetic.
Not sure to laugh or cry.

>> No.12069237

or simply stating that 5 is the symbol for this ●●●●

>> No.12069268


Except 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.

>> No.12069286
File: 43 KB, 800x333, Principia_Mathematica_54-43.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

If 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.

>> No.12069289

>repeat litterally what I said
I wasn't even pleading for 2+2=5, learn to read faggot.

>> No.12069298

>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
You acknowledged a fallacy.

>> No.12069302
File: 25 KB, 120x119, 619246609192058936.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>to point out an argument = to agree with
here's your (you)

>> No.12069309
File: 72 KB, 1013x789, math.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

It'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.

>> No.12069310

Looks 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.

>> No.12069312

Oh it is actually full-blown niggerian math that redefines nature of arithmetic operations. Again, same thing.

>> No.12069315
File: 216 KB, 181x179, 1596719443692.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>semantics and name calling
You're about to win this epic battle! Keep going!

>> 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"

>> No.12069318

>semantics don't matter
>thinks he has a say in any mathematical topic at all

>> No.12069321
File: 51 KB, 576x312, 2020-08-31 10.59.55.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>blackemathician humor

>> No.12069326
File: 54 KB, 607x428, 1598449364362.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

You do realise you're not even responding to the same person anymore I hope

>> No.12069329

>samefagposter pretending that anyone cares about him and that I'm actually disagreeing with 50 people right now

>> No.12069333
File: 16 KB, 469x311, 15154145148794561654.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Ah, darn, you got me. Well, that sucks man, I was really hoping you'd fall for that one!

>> No.12069339

Ex falso quodlibet

>> No.12069341

2.4999... = 2.5 because 0.999... = 1.

>> No.12069345

Wait til she finds out that those numerical concepts were developed by Indians and Persians before reaching Europe

>> No.12069354

>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
Then 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

>> No.12069355

Based black mathematician

>> 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

>> No.12069390

He's correct in his own context, you should argue about different topic here, anon.
He suggest everyone could use their own mathematical abstraction instead of publicly recognized ones for generic arithmetic (but of course it applies also to any mathematical) operations if anyone wants it. It adds another layer to computations, which is basically converting every other person's abstractions into your own, instead of everyone using universal, publicly agreed abstractions. Let's play devil's advocate and search for pros for such method:
>it gives emotional comfort for computation
>it probably aligns with one's thought process
probably, it's what you actually do in your own head - your own methods of computing and abstractions. Now you just present people information as it is in your head. And cons?
>there is no guarantee it's compatible with other abstraction
>which means it requires conversion
>conversion should use universal, publicly agreed system, you can use your own conversions but there should be publicly agreed system to coordinate and confirm your collective computations
and there's unfortunate conclusion - someone still has to use our own beloved math. Whether it's a middleman paid to perform conversions for benefit of "computational parties", or just a sane person who keeps it from failing together, or a machine that has compiler for all the mathematical "languages" out there (it's actually no different from programming languages), it all operates on something universal. If it doesn't, there would be something else on the bottom which does, or unacceptable incompability of computational methods.

tldr: what matters is a man asking whether or not everyone should invent their own math abstractions, or, as I already named them above, "mathematical languages". What we see is basically a Tower of Babel for math.

>> No.12069391

that he's a brainlet who has no idea how computer work

IEEE-754 floating point 1+1=2 is also accurate because how could you mess this up, the mantissa is all zeroes

>> No.12069393

>How did it get to this point?
we allowed too many women in STEM, duh

>> No.12069397

>read some book about 2+2
why 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".

>> No.12069403
File: 86 KB, 500x496, external-content.duckduckgo.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

it'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?

>> No.12069410

To 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.

>> No.12069421

The more I look at this the angrier I get.

>> 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.

>> No.12069444

"data analyst" of course he is

>> No.12069492

Made 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.

>> No.12069684

Seriously? 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.

>> No.12069908

I 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 [math]\operatorname{Spec}[/math] 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.

>> No.12069925

>this is what m*les actually believe
Imagine being capable of such delusional self-importance, just imagine...

>> 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.

>> No.12070314


>> No.12070320


Humanities departments were a mistake

>> No.12070324


>> No.12070333

This is the most insane avoidance and non-sequitur I have ever seen.

2 + 2 = 4

If 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

>> No.12070338

Don't you dare group them in with us lefists.
Retarded liberal kids from comfirtable families have shat everything

>> No.12070344

Is this the equivalent of
>If your auntie had balls she'd be your uncle

>> No.12070349

>tropical semiring

The West Indies?

>> No.12070355

Define 2
Define 5
Define the logic of addition

Outside of any variables, 2 + 2 must = 4

>> No.12070360

Top lad.

Simply extracting non-linear definitions of logically consistent logic in maths does not disprove the logical basis of those definitions.

>> No.12070370

I did; the definition is given by the image of the naturals in whatever semiring you're using.

>> No.12070374

Oh, also: yes 2+2=4 in any semiring; this does not contradict that 2+2=5, as some semiringz satisfy 4=5.

>> No.12070375

Outside of any additional concept of a semiring or notation or acrobatics, does
>2+2 = 4?

If it does not, why not?

>> No.12070395

Carr'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 = 4

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.

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.

>> No.12070446
File: 144 KB, 618x597, 1590721218806.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.12070469

there's nothing useful about his abstractions

>> No.12070489

Somalis and Syrians will be running that joint soon enough. I think I'll move to China and be one of those white male props

>> No.12070505

The concept of a semiring is not always "additional," and there's no reason to assume somebody is always working in [math]\mathbb{N}[/math]. This would be clear if you were knowledgeable in modern algebra.

>> No.12070506

>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?

>> No.12070508
File: 127 KB, 757x1189, bidenbear.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

cheer up kid

>> No.12070514

boomer meme

>> No.12070521

Maybe he is positing the ultra opposite?
/pol/is full of it to be fair.

And yes, the new liberal humanities academics are insane.

>> No.12070528

sociopaths like to act like victims whilst committing acts of evil

>> No.12070569

based quads

>> No.12070595

the blue boomer bear will defeat the orange

>> No.12070727

Formalism is a disease.

>> No.12070759
File: 25 KB, 256x256, WHVnUDVPMnGU4yAm2ZkG_Xf7-uRR8ca4WZAmktLei5Q.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>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+1

Neither of those scenarios are 2+2

>> No.12070824

just wait until they find out that 1 + 2 + 3 + ... = -1/12

>> No.12070825


>> No.12070830
File: 56 KB, 682x342, 2+2=4 slogan.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.12070855

I 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 example
if 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 machine
this is the easiest to disprove. its 1.5+1.5=3 not 1+1=3. again lazy.
>the cubes in >>12069364
this isnt really a math problem is it? IDK pretty sure this could be 1.25*4

>> No.12070866

>lol just redefine "5" to mean "4"
This is the sort of retarded shit you get from diversity being unnaturally injected into STEM.

>> No.12070875


>> No.12070914


>> No.12070917

Does that mean water is not actually composed of 1 hydrogen atom and 2 oxygen atoms, but one oxygen and one hydrogen atom?

>> No.12070945
File: 2 KB, 93x125, 1598900545698s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Newton confirmed for rapist

>> No.12070950


Who would've thought I'd find my former programming professor tweet on a thai basket weaving forum

>> No.12070984

In 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.

>> No.12070995

...and yet the computer/calculator still spits back "2"...

>> No.12070999

The jew cries out in pain as he strikes you.

>> No.12071001

Can't you see the limitless possibilities?? We could've had free energy this whole time if we weren't using whiteys numbering system

>> No.12071003

>It's bad when mathematics is rigorous

>> No.12071012

Isn't it than more appropriate to say "2 + 2 + (literal "X" factor) = 5"?

>> 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

>> No.12071023

Whoever 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.

>> No.12071042


You mean like knowing that 2+2 equals 4?

>> No.12071067

you guys aren't accounting for dark numbers

>> No.12071078

based, nice

>> No.12071125
File: 91 KB, 537x535, 1562437353098.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.12071678


100% fully based! (Exactly what I would have posted).

>> No.12071749

Pleading the fif

>> No.12071769

no, literal math is racist.

>> No.12071770



>> 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.

>> No.12071888

>implying niggers are men

>> No.12071910

>How did it get to this point?

Sane people continually backing down and not opposing the insane.

>> No.12071921
File: 2.00 MB, 3800x3800, jewfunding.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.12071936

the 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.

>> No.12071957

its 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 4
and your 2 + 2 can equal 5
it 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.

>> No.12072163

Did 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.

>> No.12072226

You 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".

>> No.12072246

Why 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.

>> No.12072301

On all fronts

>> No.12072308

>Disingenuous faggots on twitter
Call me when something noteworthy happens.

>> No.12072316

Yeah 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

>> No.12072334

>say something retarded
>cry when people tell you to fuck off

>> No.12072336

If 2+2 can equal anything I want it to be then can 2+2=NIGGER?

>> No.12072339

Unfortunately some of those faggots on twitter hold influential positions in education. They are going to be teaching this shit to children.

>> No.12072341

And collapse their own system? Good, an ideology based around endless abstraction and what-ifs is unsustainable.

>> No.12072371

But lots of us live in that system. They are going to take us with them.

>> No.12072395
File: 25 KB, 270x345, 1502130544249.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

wow I wonder who funds Harvard a real mystery for sure

>> No.12072437
File: 60 KB, 1024x913, 1592777616516.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.12072442

the most influential teacher to children are other children. homeschool your kids and let them infect others with knowledge.

>> No.12072454

>How did it get to this?
This post is on /sci/, but the question and it's only real answer belong on /pol/.

>> No.12072463
File: 6 KB, 194x259, boomy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.12072473

>here are some real-world contexts
>Kareem Carr
Affirmative 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.

>> No.12072477

This is the inevitable result of universal suffrage.

>> No.12072480

(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".

>> No.12072492

2 joggers + 2 city blocks = 12 stolen bicycles

>> No.12072498
File: 18 KB, 558x614, 664.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Can 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?

>> No.12072565

You 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.

>> No.12072566

Those are references to other theorems in the book that are used in this proof.

>> No.12072608

I 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.

>> No.12072617


>> No.12072632

We can already model 2+2=5 easily, here's an insight
>whoever wrote it is retarded.

>> No.12072657

What are the odds that none of these Pajeets even read this book before starting to larp?


If 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.

>> No.12072688

>talks about reading PM
>complains about others larping

In 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?

>> No.12072709

>more readable
What'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.

>> No.12072726

>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.

>> No.12072762

I did, and there's nothing unreadable about it.

Looks like you're just too retarded to figure out the basics.

>> No.12072834

Did 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.

>> No.12073097

Damn, 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.

>> No.12073417
File: 56 KB, 645x588, +_abbe999d8d8655082206314b72a34bee.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.12073576

Did 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.

>> No.12074467

You 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.

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.