Thread: "Choosing to Believe" 2 + 2 = 5: The Interviews

The same infinite sum of convergence cannot give a different answer.

Again, 'X can result in 5 or 4' means nothing mathematically. X is not a function.

If you're going to write out a mathematical proof then do it properly. Don't use vague words; in fact, don't use any words at all. If you can prove it properly then you won't require any language.

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

When X=infinite numbers. X=all numbers existent.
Therefore X=5, X=4. 2+2=4. Therefore 2+2=X. Since X=5. 2+2=5

X does not equal 5. X does not equal 4. X=infinite numbers.

X is merely representative of an unknown number...

Originally Posted by Sandform

The point is, can anyone actually believe that two coke cans when set next to two more coke cans will equal five coke cans. If they know what four coke cans means. Or rather, can they choose to believe such. If you actually believed this and you were a good person, or a greedy person, then you would continously put them next to eachother to get that fifth coke can and sell/give it away.

No body answered me except for those who said no.

If X equals whatever number you want it to equal. Then X=4.
2+2=4. 2+2=X. X=5. 2+2=5.

It is possible in mathematics to have a number that can be two or infinite more numbers at the same time. I just don't know the equation for it yet. The closest I have found so far is the infinite series formula. But people aren't satisfied with it.

Sandform. I'll get back to you on that one don't worry.

That's just not how maths work.

If X equals whatever number you want it to equal. Then X=4.
2+2=4. 2+2=X. X=5. 2+2=5.

It is possible in mathematics to have a number that can be two or infinite more numbers at the same time. I just don't know the equation for it yet. The closest I have found so far is the infinite series formula. But people aren't satisfied with it.

...lol, basically.

For the purposes of your education, x can only have one value in any situation. Once you assign x a value then you must be consistent, irregardless of what the possible domain of x was before you chose it.

There are no numbers which can be more than one number at a single instant. Sort of reminds me of the number called the recipriversexcluson which is everything but itself; but before that gets pounced upon I should point out that it's a Douglas Adams joke and it's completely fictional. The nearest you get to such things are functions with multiple roots, for example sinx=0. Then x can be 0, pi, 2pi, 3pi, etcetera; those are values of x that 'might' be solutions, but x does not have multiple values at the same time.

Sums of geometric series have nothing to do with any of this as far as I can see.

This is getting a little off topic i agree, but as your belief example relies so heavily on your own personal philosophy i guess we could say its pertinent.

Its important to remember the following:
If someones basic philosophy was that there was no such thing as choice, and that everything we do and think was a result of cause and effect, it would stand to reason that in order for that idea to be true the idea itself had to have emerged through cause and effect. This is no different to your own idea's, in order for your idea's to be valid, they too must fit in with the philosophy you put forward.

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

Well I use my philosophy all the time. But not in a frame of falseness.

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Firstly of course you know what im talking about, to not understand relies solely on the existence of the ability to understand. If the ability to understand and not understand relies on each other to exist, this means that both not understanding and understanding must share the commonality of being the same thing...
Ill use that to address both statements.

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

My philosophy can exist and does not disprove itself otherwise it would not be one.

If your philosophy is correct then it must, by its own law, be equally incorrect.. as both correct and incorrect have the same power to wipe each other out and so are the same. This inconsistency kills your idea.

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

It's actually the most vital thing. The most sophisticated because it can never die no matter how hard you try it will always prevail.

I've shown above that when turned on itself you can easily show its fragility.

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

Before you can choose a belief you have to figure out why it's true first. If you can't figure out how it's true you can't believe it.

Good point, you just pretty much proved UM's origional post apart from your own views, and once again ill reiterate, its still impractical to base all our beliefs on this view.

Nope x can be 4 or 5 but not 4 and 5. That's a fairly simple way of expressing it.

Xei That's not good enough I need a number that can be anything so I can make it a 4 and a five at the same time. Surely there is an equation.

If there is the golden ratio for distance there must be a number version of it. Wait I think that is the solution. The golden ratio is the equation that makes 4 and 5 the same.

RooJ your just using your understanding of my philosophy to make it incorrect. The fact that you couldn't do it without using that philosophy proves it's superiority. I can say the opposite of what you said and it would totally reverse your efforts to make the philosophy invalid.



The total length a+b is to the longer segment a as a is to the shorter segment b.

So the higher number 5 is to what lower number 4 is to 5. So 2+2=5

You can define x as a member of all numbers and then it can by 'anything', but it cannot be 'everything' simultaneously. Otherwise you'd be able to get incorrect answers like 2+2=5, which is impossible in maths if you follow the strict rules.

The golden number is just a very precise value. The ratio of the golden number plus another number to the golden number is equal to the ratio of the golden ratio to the other number. It has the exact value of (1+root5)/2. It makes pretty rectangles and spirals but it's nothing remarkable and it definitely can't have any value.

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

RooJ your just using your understanding of my philosophy to make it incorrect.

No, to show that its incorrect, its good to see you're starting to grasp it though. The philosophy itself must follow the same rules as it promotes as the philosophy itself came from your mind, which is part of the same whole the philosophy is meant to govern.

Hence

Originally Posted by RooJ

its self defeating

Originally Posted by RooJ

Its a paradox, the most damaging thing to your philosophy is... the philosophy, which could be used again and again to annihilate itself.

Originally Posted by RooJ

If your philosophy is correct then it must, by its own law, be equally incorrect..

Originally Posted by RooJ

I've shown that when turned on itself you can easily show its fragility.

RooJ I can say the opposite of what you said and it would totally reverse your efforts to make the philosophy invalid. The nature of it is so superior that it simply requires choice to make it true without being confined to any restrictions including itself. That is a freedom not a flaw. Truth not inconsistency.

Xei what I posted above proves the 2 different lengths equal the same thing. That is the same result as two different numbers being the same. So that is the equation in mathematics that solves that problem and makes 2+2=5 possible.

Reply to your edit:

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

I can say the opposite of what you said and it would totally reverse your efforts to make the philosophy invalid.

Reversing the statements would just highlight a gap in your ability to use basic logic.. but ill do it for you.. watch:
If your philosophy is incorrect then it must, by its own law, be equally correct.
this is obviously logically inaccurate as if your philosophy is incorrect we dont have to continue using it to finish the statement, we'd just simply have "If your philosophy is incorrect then.. unlucky."

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

without being confined to any restrictions including itself

This is impossible, it was born in your mind, which you claim is part of the whole, therefore it must follow the same rules or disprove itself.

With each passing attempt to worm your way through this debate you come closer to making yourself out a liar:

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

If someone can teach me something that is above me I'm grateful.

Reversing the statements would just highlight a gap in your ability to use basic logic.. but ill do it for you.. watch:

Reversing the statements would just fill the gap in your ability to use basic logic. Not highlight it.

If your philosophy is incorrect then it must, by its own law, be equally correct.

By it's own law it is only correct, because that's the same thing. According to it's law.

this is obviously logically inaccurate as if your philosophy is incorrect we dont have to continue using it to finish the statement, we'd just simply have "If your philosophy is incorrect then.. unlucky."

It's obviously logically accurate as it's entirely correct we have to finish the statement. We'd just simply put My philosophy is correct....So. Lucky me.

That's me reversing it on you again.

Originally Posted by RooJ

This is impossible, it was born in your mind, which you claim is part of the whole, therefore it must follow the same rules or disprove itself.

Nothing is impossible. If my mind is part of the whole than my mind is the rules. Using the golden ratio equation above I the lesser portion of the whole added with the larger portion. Is precisely to the larger portion what I am by myself.

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

Reversing the statements would just fill the gap in your ability to use basic logic. Not highlight it.

Explain please.

By it's own law it is only correct, because that's the same thing. According to it's law.

No, by its own law it cant just be correct, unless you're saying 2+2 can only equal 5?.. or have you decided the best way out is just to alter your own philosophy?

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

It's obviously logically accurate as it's entirely correct we have to finish the statement. We'd just simply put My philosophy is correct....So. Lucky me.

Please dont insult me, if you intend to challenge my idea's put effort in. We dont need to deal with your idea if its incorrect, period.

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

Nothing is impossible. If my mind is part of the whole than my mind is the rules.

If your mind is part of the whole your mind follows the rules, if its possible not to follow the rules then the rules dont exist as static rules. Whats the point of a philosophy/theory of everything if it doesnt govern everything?

Explain please.

Have a good hard think about it.

No, by its own law it cant just be correct, unless you're saying 2+2 can only equal 5?.. or have you decided the best way out is just to alter your own philosophy?

It's not altering the philosophy. It's filling the gaps in the ability to use basic logic. You have not considered what the philosophy is entirely so you think it's impossible, when it's just a gap in ability to use logic.

If your mind is part of the whole your mind follows the rules, if its possible not to follow the rules then the rules dont exist as static rules. Whats the point of a philosophy/theory of everything if it doesnt govern everything?

Originally Posted by minervas phoenix

If my mind is part of the whole than my mind is the rules. Using the golden ratio equation above I the lesser portion of the whole added with the larger portion. Is precisely to the larger portion what I am by myself.

If I am the rules I will lead them and make them static and govern everything.

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

Have a good hard think about it.

If you cant explain your own statement i can only assume its invalid.

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

It's not altering the philosophy. It's filling the gaps in the ability to use basic logic. You have not considered what the philosophy is entirely so you think it's impossible, when it's just a gap in ability to use logic.

Then its in your failure to explain the extra rules you've now decided to throw in.

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

If I am the rules I will lead them and make them static and govern everything.

So essentially you're that desperate not to admit you're philosophy has imploded infront of you, you're now claiming to be god heh, to control the whole with your mighty philosophy.

Well thank you.. was interesting while it lasted

Minervas, are you ready to be interviewed?

For those who are confused, x represents an unknown/ungiven number. If 2 + 2 = x, then x = 4, not 5. If 2 + 3 = x, then x = 5.

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

Xei That's not good enough I need a number that can be anything so I can make it a 4 and a five at the same time. Surely there is an equation.

You could have the domain of X be more than one number...but it's more than one number all at once. In your case, X=1,2,3,4,5,...but never just 4 or just 5.

The total length a+b is to the longer segment a as a is to the shorter segment b.

So the higher number 5 is to what lower number 4 is to 5. So 2+2=5

uh...ok, are you trying to say this?



thus 2+2=5? ...I don't follow.

Actually I don't think that up there is even right.

..well, I guess I'll hope I misunderstood you

That's exactly what I am saying. Thanks for the diagram. lol.

9 is to 5 as 5 is to 4

In this example according to the golden ratio 9 and 5 have the same value between them as 5 and 4. If 5 and 4 a different amount can have the same value present as 9 and 5. Then 4 on it's own can be justified as similar to 5 because of this mathematical proportion existing.

The reason I can say it's the same value is because in between those numbers the golden ratio proves there will always be the same proportion existing. It's another way of saying numbers can be divided to any value from any amount present. So 4 and 5 must hold the same amount if that is even possible. Otherwise they couldn't be divided identically with the same result with the same value in this way. This is proved through the proportions stated which can be measured against the numbers themself mathematically. Although it would take an infinite amount of divisions to get the value. The value is proved existing already through the presence of the golden ratio.

That formula is correct

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio