Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon.

Pages: 1-4041-

2 + 2 = 5 for very large values of 2

Name: Anonymous 2009-12-21 9:34

discuss

Name: Anonymous 2009-12-21 13:11

No.

Name: Anonymous 2009-12-21 18:36

Wrong.  It's true for small enough values of 5 though

Name: Anonymous 2009-12-21 20:05

>>3
Compromise: it's true for large enough values of 2 relative to 5.

Name: Anonymous 2009-12-24 5:41

>>4
no.

Name: Anonymous 2009-12-24 22:51

its a joke about rounding

i.e. 2.4 gets rounded down to 2

but 2.4 + 2.4 = 4.8

and 4.8 gets rounded up to 5

so, to no decimal places, 2.4 + 2.4 = 4.8 gets written as 2 + 2 = 5

Name: Anonymous 2009-12-28 10:55

>>6

Wow that was a really funny joke.

Name: Anonymous 2009-12-28 15:19

>>7
Yes, that's exactly what you are.

Name: Anonymous 2009-12-29 5:05

I was just discussing my uncle's theory of a possible missing integer in our counting system (as far as what he is researching right now) and he brought up the 2+2=5 when he was proofing using long-division. The conversation started when we were talking about how prime numbers don't jump equilaterally, rather, the pattern seems to change which signifies that both sides of the equal sign are not equivalent which means chaos theory is prevailing.

So, does anyone here know what formula from long-division can proof 2+2=5? I'm interested in this now! :3

Name: Anonymous 2009-12-29 5:53

>>9
Your uncle's a nutjob.

Name: Anonymous 2009-12-29 13:07

>>9
i lol'd a little at this, thanks for that

Name: Anonymous 2009-12-29 16:05

:3

Name: Anonymous 2009-12-30 4:47

Well, check out this chaos;

0   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9
    1   2   3       5       7      
    11      13              17      19
            23                      29
    31                      37     
    41      43              47     


Do you see the chaos now?

I'm testing this system of checks and balances out right now;
bin         dec  oct  hex
0111010100 =468 =724 =1d4
0101000101 =325 =505 =805
0001000001 =065 =101 =041
0100000100 =260 =404 =608
0101000100 =324 =504 =144

I'm not saying I'll find anything, but at least I will have eliminated the possibilities using varying number systems.
I think next I'm going to look at patterns of repetition. :/

Name: Anonymous 2009-12-30 10:38

>>13
System of checks and balances?  What the fuck are you talking about?  You don't know nearly enough math to get anywhere studying this.

P.S. 1 is not prime

Name: Anonymous 2009-12-30 10:43

>>13
Studying prime numbers, huh?  That's a field where someone with no training in advanced mathematics and his kooky uncle are sure to make some real progress.  Good luck, here's some light reading to get you started.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/math/pdf/0404/0404188v6.pdf

Name: Anonymous 2009-12-30 12:22

>>15
This made me laugh.

Name: Anonymous 2009-12-30 15:56

>>15
Nice, ben green's cool

Name: Anonymous 2009-12-30 17:50

Tao is fuckin ridiculous.  PhD at 20, full professor at UCLA at 24... won the Field's medal and got a McArthur "genius grant."  If you're in school for math check out his blog at http://terrytao.wordpress.com/, especially the career advice section.

Name: Anonymous 2009-12-30 19:57

too bad he chose the worst possible subject to spend his life on: number theory. pretty much anything else, except logic, would have been a better choice of study

Name: Anonymous 2009-12-30 20:21

>>19
Except he doesn't spend his life on number theory.  He does work in "harmonic analysis, PDE, geometric combinatorics, arithmetic combinatorics, analytic number theory, compressed sensing, and algebraic combinatorics."

Name: Anonymous 2009-12-30 21:48

insert radiohead joke here

Name: 4tran 2009-12-31 3:30

>>19
Why is number theory the worst subject?

>>21
radiohead?

Name: Anonymous 2009-12-31 10:42

>>22
it's not that it's the worst subject it's just that with tao's mind he could have helped humanity more if he chose a more applied subject

Name: Anonymous 2009-12-31 11:53

>>23
See >>20.  Harmonic analysis and PDE are applied subjects.  Compressed sensing is extremely applied, and Tao coauthored one of the papers that started that whole field.

Name: Anonymous 2009-12-31 12:01

All I can say to this is lol. This is basically the exact experience that I have had with the post-secondary institutions within the United States. I can honestly say that for the majority that professors and the institution wish to stifle creativity and independent thought. The narrow minded answers they want completely disregard the plethora of other choices that would reveal the correct answer. Whether or not the story is true, this is the attitude of the American educational institute, for those that think outside the box continue to. Revolutionist, non-conventionalist, and the blatant disregard for normalcy are the fundamentals to continuing our species in the area of science.

Name: Anonymous 2009-12-31 12:04

>>25
What are you referring to exactly?

Name: TeX 2009-12-31 12:04

show me some equations in TeX (I can't get the fucking [math] tags to work)

Name: Anonymous 2009-12-31 12:17

\pm \sqrt{b^2 - 4ac} \over 2a

Name: Anonymous 2009-12-31 12:17

>>28
If you can't see that you need to install the fonts, follow the link at the top of the page

Name: Anonymous 2009-12-31 17:28

haha it was taken off again

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-01 1:59

>>15
thanks, I'll look into this. :3


>>25
>>...normalcy...
I lol'd.
You do know you're on 4chan.org, right?
XD

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-01 16:44

>>28
I can see it!  However I don't know how I could type that myself.  I've tried a bunch of TeX examples with the [math] tags but it never works!  How did you make that, anon?

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-01 23:22

>>32
Inside [math] tags:
-b \pm \sqrt{b^2 - 4ac} \over 2a

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-02 1:24

>>33
\over

wtf?

test:
a \over b
\frac{a}{b}

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-02 1:26

>>34
Kewl, never knew about that command :3

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-02 1:51

>>35
I didn't either until recently... I'm a grad student in math and honestly I don't know TeX very well.  It's a dying language in my opinion... it's ridiculous in this day and age that people are still using a language that needs to be compiled to write articles.  It's like using a typewriter instead of a word processor, and it sucks that people cling to this archaic format instead of working towards making better WYSIWYG tools.
/endrant

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-02 2:32

>>23
just because you can't apply it doesn't mean the rest of the world can't...lol. :3

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-02 6:19

>>23
Many, if not most number theorists take great pride in the fact that the math they do has basically zero real world applications.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-02 16:15

-b \pm \sqrt{b^2 - 4ac} \over 2a

hope it worked!

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-02 18:26

>>36
The nice thing about compiled typesetting systems is that you can know exactly what is and what isn't happening, unlike (say) Word in which I never stop wondering just what Word just screwed up for me that I didn't want it to.

That, and source control. Every large project needs source control, not just software development projects.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-02 18:48

>>40
wordperfect had it right, with the reveal codes option. but then it died

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-09 8:05

If you have two(2) ropes, with two (2) knots on either one. You tie them together and get another knot. This makes five knots from adding two (2) knots and two (2) knots together, without using any rope except for that which you already had. 2 + 2 = 5

If 2+2=5, then what is 2-1?

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-09 9:04

right,
2x ropes
2x knots

{1x rope;1x knot} + {1x rope;1x knot} = ?
{1x rope;5x knot}.

amirite?

nope.

{1x rope;2x knot} + {1x jointknot} + {1x rope;2x knot}

a single rope does not 2 ropes in 1 knot make.

"DO OR DO NOT; THERE IS NO TRY." -Yoda; Star Wars

Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List