Everyone knows 1+1=2 and this is "true". But is it absolutely true. Do you think there is only one answer to 1+1=?. Can you think of at least one other answer?

If there is more than one answer to this question, what do you think knowing this fact would have to do with religion?

If there is more than one answer, what would that tell us about other questions that might be asked?

If there is more than one answer to that question, is there any question that does have only one answer?

To the best capability of truth (99.999...%), 1+1=2 will always be true being as they're just symbols, and we can prescribe whatever meaning we want to the equation itself, but 1+1 will always equal two when using current symbols.

Perhaps someone may construct a new number system, in which 1+1=", but it would still represent the exact same thing in reality, if one still had the symbolic value as the aged system.

quote:Originally posted by bkc:

Do you think there is only one answer to 1+1=?. Can you think of at least one other answer?

No. Can you?

2 is defined as being 1 more than 1. x + y is defined as being the value y more than x.

Therefore, 1 + 1 <=> 1 more than 1 <=> 2.

You have 1 penny. Jill gives you another penny. How many pennies do you have?

If the answer isn't 2, then you need to go back to first grade.

quote:If there is more than one answer to this question, what do you think knowing this fact would have to do with religion?

Nothing. What has math to do with religion?

quote:If there is more than one answer, what would that tell us about other questions that might be asked?

Well, math would be entirely fucked for one thing.

quote:If there is more than one answer to that question, is there any question that does have only one answer?

Whoa, man. Deep.

(if only there were an emoticon for "rolling eyes")

edit: expanded upon my point

[This message has been edited by Craftian (edited 02-18-2004).]

1 + 1 = 2

(therefore) sqrt1 + sqrt1 = 2

sqrt1 = 1 or -1

so, -1 + -1 = 2!

SHOCK HORROR!!

That would be totally ground breaking if the logic wasn't totally flawed.

Christ I'm sad...

"What do you in your spare time, sp0rkius."

"In my spare time, I come up with flawed ways to prove mathematical things that make absolutely no sense."

Actually 1^1/2+1^1/2 will always equal 2. A squareroot will only have the +/- answers when in the form of n=x^2, where n is any number. If n<0, you will get +/- i*n^1/2, and if n>0 or n=0, you will get+/- n^1/2. There's a principal square root, which is ALWAYS positive, and I can't remember the name of the other, which is positive or negative so long as either one satisfies the restrictions of the equation.

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

To the best capability of truth (99.999...%), 1+1=2 will always be true being as they're just symbols...

Yes, in symbols 1=1 always equals 2. That is understood. But is it ever true in real life?

You can say lots of things using symbols, words, but is there any thing that can be said, or described mathematically, that can be proven to be exactly true?

1+1=2 is a theoretical abstraction that is based upon the assumption that it is true, but it can't be proven experimentally. It is just your belief that it is unfailingly true.

You haven't even tried to think about it.

quote:Originally posted by bkc:

1+1=2 is a theoretical abstraction that is based upon the assumption that it is true, but it can't be proven experimentally.

Sure it can. Here, I'll conduct an experiment:

1 penny and another penny; 2 pennies.

Now, a good experiment is repeatable.

1 penny and another penny; 2 pennies.

Incredible!

Now let's repeat this basic arithmetic over a period of several thousand years.

Hint: it's already been done, without a single recorded case of 1+1 != 2



quote:It is just your belief that it is unfailingly true.

You haven't even tried to think about it.

Alright, I think I'm beginning to see your point (and it's a Matrix-esque "what if everything is an illusion" with false depths).

Yes, it is possible (by some stretch of the word) that one day you'll take 1 penny and another penny and have 3.

Of course, it's also possible that you're a political prisoner in the Horsehead Nebula who has been drugged to think it's a "human" in the Sol system. Of course, it's not very damn likely, you'll never know and it has no bearing on your life; why bother to speculate about it?

quote:Originally posted by Craftian:

Sure it can. Here, I'll conduct an experiment:

1 penny and another penny; 2 pennies.

Now, a good experiment is repeatable.

1 penny and another penny; 2 pennies.



But the pennies are not the exact same size and shape, just close. So you are still being theoretical. The concept is there, but the reality is different.

You're not countin the mass of the pennies as complete equals. As a whole, the single penny counts as 1...two slightly different items, that are both pennies and fulfill the purpose of being one cent in the currency system, when put together as one single penny with another single penny, will always create the pair of 2 slightly different, but for all purposes of their minting, the same, pennies. Whether or not we continue to call those two pennies 2 is irrelevent, as only the symbol changes, but the factual representation in reality will never be different. The symbols of the future that replace what we currently use to represent a single item, when doubled, will always equal the future symbol that replaces our current symbol for two. Words and numbers are human construct to explain things...making new words and numbers doesn't change the reality the slightest bit, just the method of explaining the reality.

Yes and I'm not arguing with what you are saying. But what I said is still valid also. You are speaking about the representational functions of the words, and I am speaking about the physical "realities". You are completely right from your point of view, and I am completely right from my point of view. This is what I'm trying to get across, that the usual way that people have of thinking is that they always want there to be one right answer for a question. So when you tell them there is also another right answer, they think you are saying their

answer is wrong, and get all defensive.

Point of views are opinions at best, and even in someone's mind who runs on pure logic, situations exist in which there is more than one answer. However, through a consensus reached through thousands of years, we can most assuredly say that most questions, equations, or any system has one definitive answer, while some have two. Sure, we could all be wrong, but for all practical purposes, we're right. If we were all wrong, then the system would show it...our math wouldn't be able to determine trajectories for space flights, it wouldn't help us determine the distances of stars due to light refraction...these things would be absolutely impossible to do were there more than one answer to every equation. Viewpoints are great and all, but not every opinion is as valuable as another, nor does wording an opinion differently make it different.

You acknowledge that the reality that 1+1=2 represents is true, but that the equation is unnecessary as the symbols are arbitrary and can change at any time we want them to, correct?

If so, we're only changing the representation of reality, not reality.

so what are you trying to say in terms of religion, there is only one right one?

Zero, the symbol to represent nothing, could be the right answer, maybe 1, maybe 2 and -2...we won't know until we have an equation to solve that would give the asnwer, but that won't happen since religion is to answer the why's of the world...science can only answer the corporeal questions of who, what, where, when, how.

I fucking read that book 1984, ok so i know. In the book, the government has complete government over everyone, they are a totalitarian government, "the party" they are caller. If the party says 2+2=5, then 2+2=5, and everyone believes it, because whats there to prove that they're wrong, they can change all the records so there actualy is no proof that 2+2=4. The government also has doublethink, which allows them to give the people two contradictorary thoughts, and have them believe both at the same time. Anyways, theres a part in the book when they are celebrating and there were a whole bunch of hate posters for the country they were at war with, and during the celebration, it is announced that Oceania (Which is what the party is government of) Is not at war, with the country the people thought they were at war with, in fact, they never were at war, they have always been allies with Eurasia, and have never been allies with Eastasia, but in fact have always been to war with Eastasia, this is always. The Books by George Orwell you should pick it up.

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:



You acknowledge that the reality that 1+1=2 represents is true, but that the equation is unnecessary as the symbols are arbitrary and can change at any time we want them to, correct?

Not at all. I am in no way impuning the usefulness of math, or saying that it is unnecessary. I affirmed the validity of math. Read what I said.

Doublethink was actually not doublethink, but deceptive and arbitrary singlethink.

quote:Originally posted by bkc:

Read what I said.

Yes, we've all read what you said; the problem is it makes no sense.

Maybe you're just too deep for all of us; maybe you don't know what the hell you're talking about either.

I know what my money's on.

Religion does not deal with discrete things like pennies. It deals with things like faith, emotions...unquantifiable things.

Suppose there are two people one of faith = 0 and the other of very strong faith; i.e. faith=1(assuming 1 is the highest scale on the faith-o-meter).

Then these 2 persons would have a total faith of 1 (an avg of .5). But after hanging out, talking deep theological bullshit over endless cups of coffee, lets say that the atheist becomes very religious. Faith is now equal to 2.

I know I am rambling a bit, but I think I have made my point (whether I have made it well, I leave to you to decide).

I don't think it works that way, man.

At the very least, how do you match someone's degree of religiousity to a number? As you said, it's unquantifiable.

How do you determine what's the highest level on the faith-o-meter?

It makes a small amount of sense with addition and possibly subtraction, but how do you multiply degrees of faith?

TWO AND TWO MAKE FIVE

quote:Originally posted by Craftian:

I don't think it works that way, man.

At the very least, how do you match someone's degree of religiousity to a number? As you said, it's unquantifiable.

How do you determine what's the highest level on the faith-o-meter?

It makes a small amount of sense with addition and possibly subtraction, but how do you multiply degrees of faith?

Math and religion don't mix.

But to answer your question, let's say 0 = atheist.

and 1 = raving, waving-bible-in-your-face-lunatic.

its not quantifiable...just an approximation.

faith, mental resolve, upbringing, convincing power, eye contact, body language, vocabulary, etc etc.... lets say they are all variables...which are interdependent...to many degrees.

eg a = f(a,b,c,d......)

b=f2(a,b,c,d....)

Just trying to put a spin here.

Damnit someone must understand what I'm trying to say here.

1 and 1 can only not make 2 if you take them out of their mathematical senses.

Which is not what anyone here has tried to do. But taking them out of their mathematical senses and then putting it back into it and saying that 1 and 1 are not equal to 2 because of some odd theoretical appliance to life doesn't work.

Math has to be math, so leave it at that.

quote:Originally posted by evil0verl0rd:

Just trying to put a spin here.

Damnit someone must understand what I'm trying to say here.

Math doesn't work that way.

If you add two numbers they don't get to decide whether to be added or not.

You're being far too broad with your definitions.

quote:Originally posted by bkc:

Everyone knows 1+1=2 and this is "true". But is it absolutely true. Do you think there is only one answer to 1+1=?. Can you think of at least one other answer?



Base 2:

1 + 1 = 10

There are 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.

[This message has been edited by Hexadecimal (edited 02-22-2004).]

actually, if any of you have read 1984 by George Orwell, you will see that this is not an original idea...i only have a 36.6 connection, so i didnt read all the replys and if this was already mentioned im sorry.

pg 163. "Physical facts could not be ignored. in philosophy, or religion, or ethics, or politics, two and two might make five, but when one was designing a gun or an airplane they had to make four."

this shows that in the physical world, 2+2=4, but in the mental/psychic world, 2+2 can equal whatever the hell it has to equal to solve the problem.

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

Point of views are opinions at best, and even in someone's mind who runs on pure logic, situations exist in which there is more than one answer. However, through a consensus reached through thousands of years, we can most assuredly say that most questions, equations, or any system has one definitive answer, while some have two. Sure, we could all be wrong, but for all practical purposes, we're right. If we were all wrong, then the system would show it...our math wouldn't be able to determine trajectories for space flights, it wouldn't help us determine the distances of stars due to light refraction...these things would be absolutely impossible to do were there more than one answer to every equation. Viewpoints are great and all, but not every opinion is as valuable as another, nor does wording an opinion differently make it different.

You acknowledge that the reality that 1+1=2 represents is true, but that the equation is unnecessary as the symbols are arbitrary and can change at any time we want them to, correct?

If so, we're only changing the representation of reality, not reality.

This isn't really about opinions or disagreements, but about different points of view. If I look at the penny question from theoretical or representational point of view, then I am using your point of view, and I agree that 1 penny plus 1 penny equals 2 pennies.

If I look at it from from the point of view of weight or molecular make-up, then I find that the concept of a penny is difficult to define, because of variability.

So the opinions are really just different points of view.

Trajectories and light refraction are useful math models, and they work. They are used from the viewpoint of Newtonian physics, and that is when we use them. We don't use them at extreme conditions, such as the speed of light, because then they are no longer "true". Scientists don't fight about this, but they know when to use the different point of view.

There are no models to explain the world that will not reach extremes in conditions such that that they no longer work.

The fact that I discard Newtonian Physics under certain conditions means that it is not absolutely and purely true. But it is still useful, and conditionally true.

1+1=2 is useful, but it won't work to measure, or define, pennies when we get down to the atomic, or smaller, level. But it does work for most of what we are concerned with. And we get so accustomed to it that we think it can't be questioned, and that it is an absolute truth.

"Point of views are opinions at best"... I would say that opinions are a reflection of our different points of view. Similar to disagreemts. No one can have the same point of view as someone else, but we can all understand that we have different viewpoints. And sometimes our views are so similar to someone elses, that we think they are the same, such as in the 1+1=2 example.

..."but not every opinion is as valuable as another,...". And this is where you are bordering on prejudice and bigotry, albeit in a limited way, relatively speaking. But this is where "only one answer" type of thinking eventually leads. We are establishing value of an idea from what it does for us, and how it agrees with our viewpoint, because in our present condition it is "true", but this is only temporary even if for a thousand years.

But I'm not discarding any useful ideas, and I use useful ideas as much as the next person. But I'm trying to get at the final answer.

When you get to the atomic level, you don't measure each penny as one. You measure it in moles, or perhaps even the amount of molecules. Having no fucking clue have many moles the average penny is, let's take an example. You have p1+p2=M(atomic mass in moles).

Find that the first penny is 1.001 moles, the other is 1.003 moles. Add them together and you have 2.004 moles. One penny plus one penny will ALWAYS equal two pennies. One penny's molecule count, plus another penny's molecule count, will equal, GASP! their collective molecule count, which may or may not count a different number of whole pennies compared to the average molecular weight of a penny. For example, you have 1000 pennies that weigh 1.001 moles, while the average penny is exactly 1.000 moles. A machine will count 1001 pennies by mass, but that's because it measures the moles of the pennies, rather than the amount of pennies. Different formulas that happen to be fairly accurate for something as insignificant as a penny out of every thousand or so.

We have a formula for calculating molecular mass because when we want to calculate mass, using integers just doesn't work too well, especially taking into account fractions.

Integers, such as 1 and 2 are used in 1+1=2 are generally used when counting whole pennies. The formula is quite different for calculating molecular mass as it doesn't count how many pennies, but their mass and mass alone.

first, bkc, i think that Craftian understands your point; however, he sees the philosophical flaws in your "point of view" and therefore rebuts them to prove you wrong



let's say we have different "points of view." now something is itself; that is a=a. now, if our viewpoints conflict, are there not only three possibilities: i'm wrong, you're right; you're wrong, i'm right; we're both wrong?

anyway, you don't make any point that has any relevence. it's cute to think about, but that "point of view" won't stand up forever.

secondly, 1984 was a very unrealistic book. technically possible, but highly over touted, i believe. down and out in paris and london was a much more enjoyable read.

thirdly, hexadecimal, the mathematcs are inherently flawed, inexact (for the sake of efficiency; much better than counting each individually and by examination). 1+1...+1=1000 would be correct, if we didn't have that element of error; if all minted pennies were only legal tender if exactly 1 mol in weight, the count would be correct--but that's very impractible.

i'm not sober, i hope i get my point across.

AoZ

edit: as i matter of fact, i was so not sober that i was logged in under someone elses name; this was actually ashesofzen posting.

[This message has been edited by antipiece (edited 02-24-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by antipiece:

i'm not sober, i hope i get my point across.AoZ

That explains why you were almost coherent