#1

i saw this in the nipple thread... please someone explain...

#2

It's an expression.

#3

the nipple thread

..Sorry

I know its true, this guy i know whom is a math genius tried to explain this to me once, but i fell asleep in the middle..

..So, cant help you.

..Sorry

I know its true, this guy i know whom is a math genius tried to explain this to me once, but i fell asleep in the middle..

..So, cant help you.

#5

1984?

#6

You saw it in there, but you're discussing it here?

>.<

>.<

#7

1984, great book, and radiohead has a song called 2+2=5 or something like that,

#8

its 22.

duh.

I had to post it before anyone else...

duh.

I had to post it before anyone else...

#9

1984, great book, and radiohead has a song called 2+2=5 or something like that,

Passing off reading of wikipedia as knowledge.

Oh well.

#10

It's a reference to

*Nineteen Eighty-Four*.
#11

Omg What Have I Done!

I was told by a friend who does A level maths that they learnt that 2+2

doesnt actually = 4

and that it can never be 4

its like 3.4544 or something

I was told by a friend who does A level maths that they learnt that 2+2

doesnt actually = 4

and that it can never be 4

its like 3.4544 or something

#12

UG has a nipple thread now? Face it, we own.

#13

Passing off reading of wikipedia as knowledge.

Oh well.

no, i read the book and i've listened to the song before

#14

If you tie two ropes with two knots together, you will get five knots. So, in this case, 2+2=5.

#15

Ill ask my friend tomorrow and ill send you private message.

#16

1+1=1 this is mathematical fact. if anyone is studying maths or physics he/she knows that its true

#17

Its from 1984, which in turn inspired 2+2=5 by Radiohead (awesome song)

or you could say

2.4+2.4=4.8

rounded to the nearest whole number, it becomes

2+2=5

or you could say

2.4+2.4=4.8

rounded to the nearest whole number, it becomes

2+2=5

#18

2.4+2.4=4.8 which rounds to 2+2=5

Thank you Wikipedia.

Thank you Wikipedia.

#19

I love the Dostoevsky quote on that Wikipedia entry:

"I admit that two times two makes four is an excellent thing, but if we are to give everything its due, two times two makes five is sometimes a very charming thing too."

"I admit that two times two makes four is an excellent thing, but if we are to give everything its due, two times two makes five is sometimes a very charming thing too."

#20

#21

If numbers are created by man than how the hell can they scientifically prove anything?

#22

__1__= 0,333...

3

__2__= 0,666...

3

__3__= 0,999...

3

__3__= 1

3

I guess this proves that 2+2 can also be 3.999... ?

#23

Anyone who claims that they can actually prove 2+2=5 (all these 'maths whiz's' people are talking about) is an inherently dense person trying to look intelligent. Take two apples. And another two. How many do you have?

#24

If numbers are created by man than how the hell can they scientifically prove anything?

FINALLY someone gets it!

#25

Anyone who claims that they can actually prove 2+2=5 (all these 'maths whiz's' people are talking about) is an inherently dense person trying to look intelligent. Take two apples. And another two. How many do you have?

[/THREAD]

Seriously guys, how can 2+2=5?

EDIT: Wait a sec....

*Last edited by Highvoltage45 at Mar 13, 2007,*

#26

1+1=1 this is mathematical fact. if anyone is studying maths or physics he/she knows that its true

what??

#27

1+1=1 this is mathematical fact. if anyone is studying maths or physics he/she knows that its true

...

i AM studying maths and physics, and I'm pretty certain thats crap.

Either that or i fail this semester...

#28

If numbers are created by man than how the hell can they scientifically prove anything?

Decent post, kudos.

#29

im confused

#30

Well, 2 equals anything between 1.5 and 2.499999999999999etc

so, unless you say 2.00000000000000000+2.00(you get the picture) it won't equal a perfect 4.

i think i get it now

#31

Well, 2 equals anything between 1.5 and 2.499999999999999etc

so, unless you say 2.00000000000000000+2.00(you get the picture) it won't equal a perfect 4.

2 is 2... it means 2.0000etc. unless it is said otherwise... 2.0000000000000001 =/= 2

#32

If numbers are created by man than how the hell can they scientifically prove anything?

But numbers ARENT created by man. Sure, our NAMES for the numbers are, but (referring back to my previous analogy) two apples would still be two apples even if we didnt call them two apples, if you catch my drift.

#33

Oh snap. And there I was thinking I came up with the 'if everyone believes something is true it becomes true' theory, when I was bored.

Oh well.

Oh well.

#34

If we didn't call them two apples, they wouldn't be two apples.

#35

^ Significant digits in this case, 2 has one significant digit, so does the 2nd 2. This means that the we are only talking about the ones place. Not tenths, not hundredths, not millionths.

Using what we are given, which is simply the number 2, we are to assume that we are talking about 2 with no decimals or the like.

2 + 2 = 4

Using what we are given, which is simply the number 2, we are to assume that we are talking about 2 with no decimals or the like.

2 + 2 = 4

#36

1= 0,333...

32= 0,666...

33= 0,999...

33= 1

3

I guess this proves that 2+2 can also be 3.999... ?

But it also proves that 3.999....=4

#37

But it also proves that 3.999....=4

Yeah i forgot to mention that

#38

1= 0,333...

32= 0,666...

33= 0,999...

33= 1

3

I guess this proves that 2+2 can also be 3.999... ?

True, but 3.9... is exactley equal to 4.

#39

If we didn't call them two apples, they wouldn't be two apples.

of course they would. they would be the same number of the same thing, just (through some weird alternative parallel universe world in which language developed in an entirely different way) called something else.

#40

But if we didn't call them two, they wouldn't

If instead of two, we used three, they would be three apples.

**be**two.If instead of two, we used three, they would be three apples.