WJ

2 + 2 = 5 if the value of 2 is large enough.

All measurements in the real world (as opposed to the esoteric whirled of mathematics) are estimates; they're always rounded to something. There's no such thing as absolute precision. So rounding must come into play sometime or other, and the joke about 2 + 2 = 5 if 2 is large enough, is a reminder about the way that estimation errors compound.

seebs

What makes this funny, to me, is that I had a huge argument with a science teacher once, because she was convinced that all numbers *ALWAYS* had significant figures, and I'd never heard of any such nonsense.

It was impossible for us to communicate; she simply didn't know what I must be smoking to think that there was such a thing as an exact value.

Secular Elation

2 + 2 = 5 if the value of 2 is large enough.

All measurements in the real world (as opposed to the esoteric whirled of mathematics) are estimates; they're always rounded to something. There's no such thing as absolute precision. So rounding must come into play sometime or other, and the joke about 2 + 2 = 5 if 2 is large enough, is a reminder about the way that estimation errors compound.

Let us say you had two apples on one table. Then, you have two apples on another table. Take the apples on one table, and place them beside the apples on the other table. If you count the total amound, you have four apples! You cannot have five apples! It is impossible.

You cannot have an "estimated" apple. You either have an apple or you don't. (You could say, "Well, what if I cut an apple in half?" Well, then the equation would no longer be [2+2] would it!)

WJ

...but, for instance, say you had 4 apples and all of then were different in size/weight. Two of them were very small; two of them very large. How would you apportion them correctly without weighing them?

Secular Elation

...but, for instance, say you had 4 apples and all of then were different in size/weight. Two of them were very small; two of them very large. How would you apportion them correctly without weighing them?

Then you still have four apples! One small, tiny apple is still, technically, an apple! One large apple, one that could barely fit on your hand, is still an apple, as an object in itself! So, if you have four of these, regardless of variation, there are still four apples! There are not five!

Now, if you want to take volume as an account of the total mass of apples, then that is a different issue. However, the equation would no longer be {2+2} again, because you would have more than four apples worth.

WJ

Do you care then to amend your original statement about the truth value of a some thing?

You said: "For example, two plus two equals four (2+2=4), there is no disputing that claim! It is impossible for 2+2 to not equal 4. A person cannot say, "Well, I think it is rational that 2+2=5" -- that is flat out incorrect, for obvious reasons."

(?)

Walrus

[ June 26, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]</p>

Secular Elation

Do you care then to amend your original statement about the truth value of a some thing?

Um...no! I already rationalized myself. You're simply being foolish in dragging it out beyond what is necessary.

Place two rocks alongside another two rocks, and you have four rocks total. End of story.

[ June 26, 2002: Message edited by: Secular Elation ]</p>

WJ

Well, then let me demonstrate your inconsistency in your use of reasoning/logic about truth value.

You said: "Now, if you want to take volume as an account of the total mass of apples, then that is a different issue. However, the equation would no longer be {2+2} again, because you would have more than four apples worth."

Then you said: "A person cannot say, "Well, I think it is rational that 2+2=5" -- that is flat out incorrect..."

Let it stand that you are wrong in saying it is "flat out incorrect". Perhaps it is *you* who is not 'rational'?

I welcome correction here.

Walrus

Secular Elation

How ridiculous.

Actually, I wrote the second quote you have in your post BEFORE the first quote in your post.

Anyways, they are not inconsistent! I said this:

"A person cannot say, "Well, I think it is rational that 2+2=5" -- that is flat out incorrect..."

Then later I said

"Now, if you want to take volume as an account of the total mass of apples, then that is a different issue. However, the equation would no longer be {2+2} again, because you would have more than four apples worth."

...and there is no contradiction!

Look...TWO PLUS TWO EQUAL FOUR! It is IMPOSSIBLE for it to not equal four! When I wrote about taking volume as an account of mass, that changes the equation from 2+2 to another equation! I am considering only whole numbers here.

You first touched the point of an "esitmated value." Well, then it would no longer be 2! It would be, 1.9 or 2.3, but not the whole number 2! Therefore, when adding the "estimated" values to 2, you get something different than four.

But the equation is no longer 2+2! I was discussing ONLY THAT EQUATION!

Synaesthesia

WJ,
The symbology of 2+2=X clearly refers to a particular mathematical system. Within that system two plus to can be none other than four. If it is true that 2+2 is anything other than four, then you are necessarily talking about a different system.

In that case, it is nonsensical to talk about who is and isn't right or rational.