2 + 2 = 5

KerrTexas

KerrTexas

Super Moderator
It seems to me that if someone wishes to persuade me that 2 + 2 = 5 , the most 'constructive' thing to do ...
Click to expand...

Twighlight...you strike me as an intelligent individual who has an excellent grasp of the English Language, especially as demonstrated in some of your posts as written here.

It seems to me that you know exactly how to compose your posts either as "constructive" or "destructive" ; " Respectful or Dis-respectful " !

In reading through the posts in various threads, I was NOT able to discover anywhere it is stated :

" TWIGHLIGHT , 2 + 2 = 5 ! "

And if one reads my post - ( Yes. It is called "constructive" criticism. )/ The Mind Portal...A Time Tunnel carefully, no-where are there any specific members named; Your reply speaks for itself, so obviously you know what I meant --


And you weren't necessarily the one that my comments were directed towards in addressing the issue of dis-respectful commentaries.

Simply put the following is what "I" expect :

1.Show respect to others.
2.Do not flood, spam, or post garbage text on the forums.
3.Do not submit comments which are obscene, hateful, or threatening.
4.Don't mimic a staff member's ID.
5.Do not change your identity or ip to evade a ban.
6.Respect the authority of Staff.
7.Use constructive criticism, rather than being abusive.
8.Be respectful of other systems, styles, and approaches.

I also suggest that everyone take a look-see at the following link :

The V guide to debates - (Or how to not sound like an idiot)

Before anyone mentions that the "topics" are different within the linked post ...simply replace those topical words with "Time Travel ... "

If both sides of a debate have comparable evidence or opinions, then split the topic and describe both sides in a seperate thread...just like I did with this post.

Now, we all can debate "this" topic without disrupting the OP's thread.

I surely hate to repeat myself and know up front that I will not play games, nor am I going mention this issue again ... it is entirely up to y'all what happens from here.
 
Twighlight's post about quantum physics in the "What's wrong with this concept" topic showed to me how intelligent he/s is. It was very enjoyable to consider. I would like to read more from that individual in the future.
 
It seems to me that you know exactly how to compose your posts either as "constructive" or "destructive" ; " Respectful or Dis-respectful " !
Click to expand...


Sure. I've managed forums myself. On this forum I greatly admire those such as Dave Kinky...who are able to post the most eloquent nonsense imaginable. I could never match that level of wit.

Issues don't arise just because people may post 'nonsense', or because they get called to task on it. In my experience, issues arise where the poster is 'personally identified' with what they are posting....the 'my theory' type of thread.....as opposed to just having some generic debate on some interesting topic. It is extremely hard to debate a topic where any critique of the 'theory' is taken as a personal affront.

Though I am extremely sceptical of most time travel claims...I would actually like time travel to be real. I do not believe the topic is inherently nonsense. My personal position is more a sort of Fox Mulder type ' I want to believe'.

Indeed, that is my position on quite a few such topics. I am a 'believer' in UFOs, for example. Though 99% of the evidence is pure bunk...there is some remarkable evidence that to me suggests there is something real going on. And I personally tend to the belief that UFOs are ( as some suggest ) precisely the time travellers we are looking for and not aliens. Anyone is welcome to suggest that's '2 + 2 = 5'.....and I may be wrong.

The more one wants to believe in something, the more rigour ( as with Fox Mulder ) one applies in debating it. That may come across sometimes as being blunt and dismissive.....but no personal affront is intended. A lot of the time, the person I'm doing my best to convince is myself.
 
I know this is irrelevant but I wonder how many can prove that 2+2=4.
Click to expand...


You start of with one of the basic Peano axioms :

For every natural number n, the successor S(n) is a natural number

The list of natural numbers thus goes..

0
S(0)
S(S(0))
S(S(S(0)))
S(S(S(S(0))))

...and so on.

So we are looking for proof that S(S(0)) + S(S(0)) = S(S(S(S(0))))

We do this with another Peano axiom that where n and m are natural numbers S(m) = S(n) ...which also means n + S(m) = S(n + m)

Thus S(S(0)) + S(S(0)) = S (S(S(0)) + S(0))

Because any natural number n, plus 0, is still n, we can write this as ..

S( S( S(S(0)) + 0 ) )

which is the same as

S(S(S(S(0))))


Which is thus a logic and axiomatic proof that 2 + 2 = 4


I have a suspicion that one could probably use Peano's mathematical axioms to prove that timelines defy logic. But that would really do my head in trying to prove.
 
You start of with one of the basic Peano axioms :

For every natural number n, the successor S(n) is a natural number

The list of natural numbers thus goes..

0
S(0)
S(S(0))
S(S(S(0)))
S(S(S(S(0))))

...and so on.

So we are looking for proof that S(S(0)) + S(S(0)) = S(S(S(S(0))))

We do this with another Peano axiom that where n and m are natural numbers S(m) = S(n) ...which also means n + S(m) = S(n + m)

Thus S(S(0)) + S(S(0)) = S (S(S(0)) + S(0))

Because any natural number n, plus 0, is still n, we can write this as ..

S( S( S(S(0)) + 0 ) )

which is the same as

S(S(S(S(0))))


Which is thus a logic and axiomatic proof that 2 + 2 = 4
Click to expand...
Cool.

I have a suspicion that one could probably use Peano's mathematical axioms to prove that timelines defy logic. But that would really do my head in trying to prove.
Click to expand...

All timelines of Schrodinger's cat can be categorized into two, depending on whether the cat lives or dies. Locally, within the first category of timelines, there is no contradiction. Same with the second category, which contains all timelines where the cat dies. However, the law of the excluded middle is violated if you take them together: the cat lives and the cat doesn't live.

Does that work?
 
Math can become pretty strange when 2 + 2 = 1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banach%E2%80%93Tarski_paradox

The Banach–Tarski paradox is a theorem in set theoretic geometry which states that a solid ball in 3-dimensional space can be split into a finite number of non-overlapping pieces, which can then be put back together in a different way to yield two identical copies of the original ball.
Click to expand...

Circle squaring problem:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27s_circle-squaring_problem

Tarski's circle-squaring problem is the challenge, posed by Alfred Tarski in 1925, to take a disc in the plane, cut it into finitely many pieces, and reassemble the pieces so as to get a square of equal area. This was proven to be possible by Miklós Laczkovich in 1990; the decomposition makes heavy use of the axiom of choice and is therefore non-constructive. Laczkovich's decomposition uses about 10^50 different pieces.
Click to expand...

Does mathematical existence equal physical existence?

If not then what mathematical structures do not correspond to some physical existence and why do others correspond so well?
 
Does mathematical existence equal physical existence?

If not then what mathematical structures do not correspond to some physical existence and why do others correspond so well?
Click to expand...

I don't know.

There is a theoretician who says YES. His articles are well worth at least a skim.

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9704009

http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0646

And a counterargument:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.0944


The mathematical universe hypothesis is that the answer is YES. However, Tegmark argues this from the external reality hypothesis which might be more dubious than one might think at a glance. However, Tegmark's theory can be rescued, if the ERH is not acceptable per se, as the word external can be dropped from his assumptions; in other words the argument he presents for the MUH as following from the ERH still works even if there is no reality external to the observer. It could be called the reality hypothesis instead.


It might be relevant to add in something I've written which assumes the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis:
http://www.timetravelinstitute.com/ttiforum/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=realscience&Number=69627&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1
 
Math can become pretty strange when 2 + 2 = 1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banach%E2%80%93Tarski_paradox

In reply to:

The Banach–Tarski paradox is a theorem in set theoretic geometry which states that a solid ball in 3-dimensional space can be split into a finite number of non-overlapping pieces, which can then be put back together in a different way to yield two identical copies of the original ball.
Click to expand...

I believe that their motivation was to show how the axiom of choice leads to pathological constructions and ought be dropped from our list of axioms.

This argument doesn't quite imply 2+2 isn't 4. I've seen the argument for decomposing a sphere of diameter 1 into 5 pieces that, when rearranged, form two spheres of diameter 1. Volumes of objects are sub-additive in the sense that if you cut something into five pieces having volumes a, b, c, d, and e, such that the sum a+b+c+d+e equals the volume of the original object. So it would appear that a+b+c+d+e is equals both the volume of a sphere of diameter 1 and the volume of a sphere of diameter 2. However, volume is sub-additive only if each piece is "measurable" and this construction involves "non-measurable" sub-objects. Regarding non-measurable objects, the volume of the whole is not sub-additive and thus there is no contradiction.
 
Laczkovich's decomposition uses about 10^50 different pieces.
Click to expand...


Quite a lot ! In fact, the total number of atoms in the entire universe is believed to be around 10^40.............so we're talking about the number of atoms in 10 billion universes.

I'm guessing nobody will ever do a practical demo of Laczkovich's theory.
 
Back
Top