2 + 2 doesn't = 4? An original proof created by myself.

[Embalmer]

I was expecting something mind blowing.

This....

.
.
.
.


Wasn't

You are arguing that because a number alone has no units that it cannot be "added" to another number. This is false - numbers can be unit"less" and by the very definition of addition - can be added to one another.

Next BRAIN BUSTER?

[grip750]

My thought would be that the original meaning of NUMBERS was to represent a unit. NUMBERS did not just appear to humans. We attach the visual aspect to it because that was the intension to account for UNITS. Just like all WORDS were intended to represent meanings and a way to comunicate and letters are for the same reason and to give things names. If I tell you I LOVE you can not prove it, it is just known. So I will choose to live in a world where a number is not questioned and my love for people and things is not questioned but taken as truth. So for now on we should all have no names because letters are just a shortcut to indentify something or someone. 2+2= whatever you want it to in your limited brain but as a human race we all need someway to not live like cavemen. Thankyou for bringing us back to the beginning of time

[Big Brunsy]

Back in high school my algebra teacher had a way of proving 1+2=1
I forgot how he did it but used X and Y and then after doing out the formula with the letters he inserted a 1 and a 2 and proved that 1+2=1 (or something like that)

[Milk 1027]

this sounds familiar......

[Iwantone2]

Ah....leave it Mindz to start such a great thread...

But if you ask an accountant what 2+2 equals, they will answer "Whatever you want it to be..."

[kcamarom]

I aggree with the OP, 2+2 does not equal four. 2+2 equals 5.

[InfernoOrange2010]

The error is in the title of the thread 2+2 does not equal 4 is not a proof no more than 2+2=4 is a proof. A proof is supported or proven by supporting theoroms (ok so I was a math major in college so check the spelling) Theoroms are statements accepted as facts. So therefore 2+2=4 is and has always been an accepted fact (unless you are talking about Modern Algebra which has it's own mathimatical tables). This makes 2+2=4 a theorom to support a proof.

[Angrybird 12]

I can't believe a year and 9 months later this thread has been ressurected. Mindz don't you have anything better to do?.. lets let it die please...

[Mindz]

ok, I'll let it die.

[DGthe3]

I was about to reply with some explanation using null-units, then noticed that I already did so 5 years ago. Not going to bother this time.

[dkp2LT]

I'm not sure the threads have anything to do with 2+2=4 but instead the point being that there is an argument for any topic.

[CamaroSkooter]

First time I've seen this thread.

The problem with your assumption is that you call numbers "measurements" then you call them a "quantity of units."

If you keep using a vague definition for a number and constantly change that definition, then it's simple to confuse anyone.

A number is a dimensionless unit to represent a quantity. A quantity of what? Anything! That's the point of it being a dimensionless unit.

And by definition, a unit in mathematical terms is "a single thing."

So, when you look at an equation like "2 + 2 = 4" you're really and truly saying "2 units + 2 units = 4 units" where "unit" can be anything in the world (so long as whatever you replace "unit" with, you have to do so across the entire formula).

So, when you replace the formula with "2 apples + 2 apples = 4 apples" you effectively proved my post for me.

And, done.

[ajp]

Disagree.

Lets say I have a container that holds 2 quarks. I put 1 quark in it.

Its now 1/2 full/empty.

Also - the absence of a unit is equivalent to the presence of a unit, so 2+2 is always 4.

Originally Posted by DGthe3

But you can't get exactly half . . . I'm gonna be extremely nitpicky 'cause it serves my purposes . Lets assume that we are using a 1L container and water is being used to half fill it. To completely fill it it would take roughly 33 428 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 molecules of water to fill. Now first off, there is no way to measure this number, or half of it. Second of all, it is reasonably to conclude that few of those didgits should be 0. Thirdly assuming that the previous statement is correct, there is a 50% chance that the last digit will be odd making division by 2 impossible -you can't have half a molecule of water.

Too much time on my hands

[ChrisBlair]

Originally Posted by Mindz

I decided to post one of my old arguments on another forum and figured I might as well post it here. So let me know what you guys think!

Just the odd mind-screw that's all. Some thing as saying that mathematically, since you must travel halfway to get anywhere before you arrive, you never can get anywhere. You go a foot. Then 6". Then 3. Then 1 and a half. And so on. You keep dividing the number. You never reach zero.

That's fine in a theoretical sense with points on a line, since they are points, not physical entities, but in real life, yes you actually get to your destination quite frequently.

What I want to know is, why is a pair of pears only two pears? That should be four pears. And as everybody knows, four pears equals 8.