site banner

2+2 = not what you think

felipec.substack.com

Changing someone's mind is very difficult, that's why I like puzzles most people get wrong: to try to open their mind. Challenging the claim that 2+2 is unequivocally 4 is one of my favorites to get people to reconsider what they think is true with 100% certainty.

-34
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Nevertheless it is the case. We think 4, 4 is 0, therefore "0=not what you think" isn't true.

"You" are less than 0.0001% of the population, so virtually nobody.

Did you just claim less than 0.0001% of people think 2+2=4?

4 is what everyone thinks, 0 is merely a different representation of the same object. So people are giving the correct answer, you're just insisting on a different formulation.

Did you just claim less than 0.0001% of people think 2+2=4?

No. That less than 0.0001% of people think 2+2=0?

Then explain how that's supposed to be a response to my point, please.

My point being that in Z/4Z, 2+2=0 and 2+2=4 are the same statement. Ergo, 2+2=0 is merely another way to write down what we think. We might not literally think it, but we are thinking an equivalent statement.

My point being that in Z/4Z, 2+2=0 and 2+2=4 are the same statement.

Which most people do not understand. Most people don't know what Z/4Z is, and most people don't know there exists more than one arithmetic.

You are ignoring my point that most people don't know that integers modulo n exist.

I'm not ignoring it, I'm rejecting it has any relevance. Everyone doesn't know a lot of things. This is hardly new or interesting.

But the existence of modular arithmetics doesn't make 2+2=4 incorrect. It merely makes 2+2=0 another representation of the same statement. So "most people" remain correct.

It merely makes 2+2=0 another representation of the same statement.

Do you believe that (2+2=4) and (2+2=0 (mod 4)) is "the same statement"?

(2+2=4 (mod 4)) and (2+2=0 (mod 4)) is the same statement. If you omit the (mod 4) part, you're merely communicating badly. Again.

More comments