I think an extremely large value of 2 would be something like 2.49. The true value is 2.49, but you rounded down to 2 early in the problem. When you add 2+2 you get 4. But, say there were errors or assumptions early, and you really should have been doing 2.49+2.49=4.98 which would even out to 5. ---- I think this would only be relevant in large problems that are scientific. Obviously 2+2=4 but if you were a scientist who tries to be very exact, knowing that you would have to round up or down at times, this might mess you up. --- Just my guess.
Yea I'm with you. I think it's bullshit. But, I do see how on a very large scale, with lots of variables, something like .00000001 could mess you up. Something like 2+2=5 is wayy overly simplistic. --- I'm just trying to give benefit of doubt with tthe only logical explanation I can come up with.
This is kind of a thing with floating point numbers, which is how most computer programs handle decimals. (There are some alternatives but they tend to be slow and memory intensive.) Because there's finite memory, and some numbers have infinite decimal places, those numbers must be approximated. If you don't account for this and do a lot of computations in a row, the error adds up and can give wildly inaccurate results. Computer games and space craft, for example, deal with this issue regularly.
Both answers are right. If someone rounds to whole numbers, then "very large values of 2" are things like 2.4 which 4.8 rounds up to 5.
But if you are sitting in a math class or anywhere else there is a reason you define tolerances and precision, because you don't want significant rounding error just like as above example, where someone is trying to argue that 2.0+2.0 = 5.0, which is essentially what 2+2=5 is. In any serious math/science class, either 2+2=4 or 2.4+2.4=4.8 (because you always keep the same number of sig digits)
Because it's a fun drop for ACTUAL professors talking about precision. In fact I heard those exact words come out of a Math professor's mouth when talking about discrete vs continuous numbers at a top 10 Engineering college. It isn't really relevant to the tweet but it is how 2+2 would equal 5 (for large values of 2) In discrete math, there is no 2.4.
Yeah but they don't specify large values, they explicitly say, "2," implying 2.0. The whole commie core math nonsense is engineered to create retards and further inhibit critical thinking.
This is ridiculous. You cannot have 2 answers to the same mathematical question or more precisely, the same number combination cannot have two answers. 2+2=4, 2.4+2.4=4.8
Rounding is simplified math for those who don't want to be precise or don't need to be.
Unless a different base is specified its assumed base 10. Square root of 4 has two answers because the definition of a square root and the distributive law. Doesn't change anything.
I'd like to clarify that they didn't set out to prove 1+1=2. Principa Mathematica is a 680-page collection of extremely pedantic mathematical proofs that is meant as a "baseline of mathematics" in which 162 pages in they prove 1+1=2 for further proofs.
Now when I say pedantic, one of the pure mathematical proofs they used to prove 1+1=2, translated into plain English, essentially says "if two objects exist, the first object exists and also the second object exists".
I wanted to put this here incase anyone wondered how that is even possible.
"After seeing the impact of both the online dialogue and the recent article, Carr’s 'hope is that you understand the flexible relationship between our mathematical systems, our perceptions of the world, and the symbolic manipulations we use to reason about reality. We are not passive observers.'”
That is bullshit Postmodernism. It is a garbage conflation of toxic German Idealism and Deconstructionism and Reader-Response Criticism applied to mathematical truths, contending that the world is subjectively crafted and that we conceive the world instead of perceiving it as an objective truth and reality; in short, the world is a matter of will and re-presentation...Bah, humbug!
People MUCH, MUCH smarter than Kareem---Newton, Archimedes, Copernicus, Galileo, Einstein---understood that 2+2=4 always, so why should anyone waste their time listening to Kareem? Architects, engineers, medical dosage all rely upon the constancy of numerical values. Try telling the people who built the pyramids at Giza or Stonehenge that mathematical equations are arbitrary, shithead. You know who argued that 2+2 can be anything other than 4? O'Brien, Winston's tyrannical tormentor in Orwell's "1984"...no thanks.
Unlike the retard who wrote that, I proved it mathematically, using logic. The retard was just told 2+2=4, but never understood why. That's why they are now questioning it.
Literally 1984 happening
the chocolate rations will be increased from 400 grams to 100 grams
2+2=5 for very large values of 2.
What the fuck is a large value of 2
We have things called decimals for a reason
Poseidon give you a little schmoocheroonie?
I think an extremely large value of 2 would be something like 2.49. The true value is 2.49, but you rounded down to 2 early in the problem. When you add 2+2 you get 4. But, say there were errors or assumptions early, and you really should have been doing 2.49+2.49=4.98 which would even out to 5. ---- I think this would only be relevant in large problems that are scientific. Obviously 2+2=4 but if you were a scientist who tries to be very exact, knowing that you would have to round up or down at times, this might mess you up. --- Just my guess.
Yeah, that's what the PHD big brains are saying to justify it.
If you need precision, you aren't going to round fucking whole numbers. 2 is 2. If it's not, use a fucking decimal.
They're trying to warp common sense and pretend they are geniuses for it
It's what happens when you try to over educate dumb people.
Yea I'm with you. I think it's bullshit. But, I do see how on a very large scale, with lots of variables, something like .00000001 could mess you up. Something like 2+2=5 is wayy overly simplistic. --- I'm just trying to give benefit of doubt with tthe only logical explanation I can come up with.
This is kind of a thing with floating point numbers, which is how most computer programs handle decimals. (There are some alternatives but they tend to be slow and memory intensive.) Because there's finite memory, and some numbers have infinite decimal places, those numbers must be approximated. If you don't account for this and do a lot of computations in a row, the error adds up and can give wildly inaccurate results. Computer games and space craft, for example, deal with this issue regularly.
tl;dr
If the know value is greater than 2, then the number in question is not 2.
Both answers are right. If someone rounds to whole numbers, then "very large values of 2" are things like 2.4 which 4.8 rounds up to 5.
But if you are sitting in a math class or anywhere else there is a reason you define tolerances and precision, because you don't want significant rounding error just like as above example, where someone is trying to argue that 2.0+2.0 = 5.0, which is essentially what 2+2=5 is. In any serious math/science class, either 2+2=4 or 2.4+2.4=4.8 (because you always keep the same number of sig digits)
No both answers are not correct, 2+2=4.
2 point anything is not 2.
Someone who is rounding to integers in any situation where they need precision is an absolute moron and why are we even discussing this
Because it's a fun drop for ACTUAL professors talking about precision. In fact I heard those exact words come out of a Math professor's mouth when talking about discrete vs continuous numbers at a top 10 Engineering college. It isn't really relevant to the tweet but it is how 2+2 would equal 5 (for large values of 2) In discrete math, there is no 2.4.
Well, they believe chicks with dicks are women
This is all because we never respected Dewey when we were younger.
Yeah but they don't specify large values, they explicitly say, "2," implying 2.0. The whole commie core math nonsense is engineered to create retards and further inhibit critical thinking.
That's the joke.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKcWu0tsiZM
That's fatphobic
Most things are, as they should be.
Nothing has ever made me breathe harder through my nose than this.
There is no large value of 2. 2 is 2 is 2x10^0 is 2.0 is 2.0000000000000000.
The joke of a large value of 2 is older than anyone currently using this board.
This is ridiculous. You cannot have 2 answers to the same mathematical question or more precisely, the same number combination cannot have two answers. 2+2=4, 2.4+2.4=4.8
Rounding is simplified math for those who don't want to be precise or don't need to be.
What's the square root of 4?
2 and -2
Two correct answers.
2+2=4
But also
2+2=10
In base 4
Unless a different base is specified its assumed base 10. Square root of 4 has two answers because the definition of a square root and the distributive law. Doesn't change anything.
oh boy 🙄 here, take 5 🖐🏼 minus 4 = 🖕🏼
Read it carefully:
Because that would be 9, obviously.
The "proof" of 1+1=2 took 162 pages in Principa Mathematica.
I'd like to clarify that they didn't set out to prove 1+1=2. Principa Mathematica is a 680-page collection of extremely pedantic mathematical proofs that is meant as a "baseline of mathematics" in which 162 pages in they prove 1+1=2 for further proofs.
Now when I say pedantic, one of the pure mathematical proofs they used to prove 1+1=2, translated into plain English, essentially says "if two objects exist, the first object exists and also the second object exists".
I wanted to put this here incase anyone wondered how that is even possible.
Thank you, this is interesting.
Exactly!
"Focus, Winston, focus."
2+2+5?????
@kareem_carr is a dumb ass
Yeah, that's 9.
●● ← 2
●● ← 2
●●●● ← 4
●● + ●● = ●●●●
2 + 2 = 4
Dumbasses
But are you a first nation's black immigrant with the first to graduate college lesbian that eats ass?? Didn't think so bigot.
"Postmodern Neo-Marxism".
How is that different from men can have babies?
He's a "bio statistics" major. Now imagine what kind of crap is going to come from his employer.
"Why having myocarditis is good for you"!
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/biostatistics/2020/09/kareem-carr-explains-why-225/
I gave it an open minded read and still think it's sensationalist bullshit.
That's because it is.
"After seeing the impact of both the online dialogue and the recent article, Carr’s 'hope is that you understand the flexible relationship between our mathematical systems, our perceptions of the world, and the symbolic manipulations we use to reason about reality. We are not passive observers.'”
That is bullshit Postmodernism. It is a garbage conflation of toxic German Idealism and Deconstructionism and Reader-Response Criticism applied to mathematical truths, contending that the world is subjectively crafted and that we conceive the world instead of perceiving it as an objective truth and reality; in short, the world is a matter of will and re-presentation...Bah, humbug!
Sir please walk 2 + 2 feet toward the edge of the cliff but no further or you'll fall off.
lol, dumbasses put "2+2+5"
Did they delete this? I can’t find it on their TL.
Here Pede. I found this from the url in the pic and got an archive link for it...
https://archive.is/eL9Qb
If I have two apples, and then I get two more apples, I have five apples? Shit. What am I going to do with all these apples? Applesauce?
For the record, the tweet says 2+2+5.... which is fucking 9.... these retards are fucking retarded.
THERE
ARE
FOUR
LIGHTS
There are four lights.
People MUCH, MUCH smarter than Kareem---Newton, Archimedes, Copernicus, Galileo, Einstein---understood that 2+2=4 always, so why should anyone waste their time listening to Kareem? Architects, engineers, medical dosage all rely upon the constancy of numerical values. Try telling the people who built the pyramids at Giza or Stonehenge that mathematical equations are arbitrary, shithead. You know who argued that 2+2 can be anything other than 4? O'Brien, Winston's tyrannical tormentor in Orwell's "1984"...no thanks.
I believe in "FLAT Earth" unironically just to spite the GloboHomo. 2 can play this charade.
PhD student where? He is saying he can't count without saying he can't count. And yet he has been promoted to PhD candidate? Oof!
I'd say "don't get on that plane", but there wouldn't be a plane anyway.
Wakanda Forever!
Even theoretically it's impossible to make 2+2 = 5 without ignoring laws.
Depends on what the definition of two is🤡
Thanks, Kareem.
Of course its name is Kareem. Perhaps "students" should not be in a position to teach others.
Two plus two equities five.
The mental equivalent of eating dirt.
I bet his explanation is rife with the term “synergy” and requires the deaths of American patriarchy and Christian values.
I think i saw a very accurate prediction of what America was to become in a little known movie called “If Jim Jones was a Faggot”.
Isnt this how the swamp sold America on “free trade”?
Unlike the retard who wrote that, I proved it mathematically, using logic. The retard was just told 2+2=4, but never understood why. That's why they are now questioning it.
2 + 2 = 22 fuckin retards