2 + 2 = 5

[Mr. Jaggers]

In school we were taught the basics - reading, writing, arithmetic. “Two plus two equals four,” we were taught. However, this fundamental principle of mathematics, which worked with consistent regularity in the classroom, breaks down immediately when applied to the affairs of men where one is confronted with the confounding fact that two plus two equals five, or only three, depending on one’s investment counselor or tax advisor; and even a government study that concludes that the actual sum may amount to several billion, depending on how you crunch the numbers. And from the Pentagon we have proof of the principle of appropriations financing, viz. that costs expand to equal or exceed budget limitations. (Think of it as water seeking its own level - with some slopping over occasionally.) But now people are being called to account; and the nation is facing a crisis over balancing the budget. You listen in dumb amazement to the news of our leaders calling for “fiscal conservatism.” What gobbledegook! Anxiously, you punch up two plus two on your pocket calculator; but in your hurry you press the wrong key and make an error. You reflect on life’s contradictions: Why didn’t they teach us that in school?

[Zhavric]

You obviously did not read my post. Kindly follow the link and stop going off-topic. I don't see what an unbalanced budget has to do with a simple logic expression.

[RedRackham]

There's a bit of a history in mathematics with the 2+2=5 question, various people have claimed proofs throughout the ages. It's interesting seeing different people's responses.

The logician Bertrand Russell was stated in a lecture that if 1+1=1, then he could prove anything. Someone challenged him in that case to prove that Betrand Russell was the pope. Bertrand Russell came back with: "Bertrand Russell is one. The Pope is one. Therefore Bertrand Russell and the Pope are one."

[EndersGame]

You can do anything with a little reform

For example, in Year 1 that useless letter "c" would be dropped to be replased either by "k" or "s", and likewise "x" would no longer be part of the alphabet. The only kase in which "c" would be retained would be the "ch" formation, which will be dealt with later. Year 2 might reform "w" spelling, so that "which" and "one" would take the same konsonant, wile Year 3 might well abolish "y" replasing it with "i" and Iear 4 might fiks the "g/j" anomali wonse and for all. Jenerally, then, the improvement would kontinue iear bai iear with Iear 5 doing awai with useless double konsonants, and Iears 6-12 or so modifaiing vowlz and the rimeining voist and unvoist konsonants. Bai Iear 15 or sou, it wud fainali bi posibl tu meik ius ov thi ridandant letez "c", "y" and "x" — bai now jast a memori in the maindz ov ould doderez — tu riplais "ch", "sh", and "th" rispektivli. Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spiking werld.

Or if you want a difference example

lets say A= (10A-1A)/9

so 1= (10[1]-1[1])/9
1=1
but if A=.999
.999= (10[.999]-1[.999])/9
.999=1
While as if A=.99
.99=.99

[tman_ndsu08]

lets say A= (10A-1A)/9

so 1= (10[1]-1[1])/9
1=1
but if A=.999
.999= (10[.999]-1[.999])/9
.999=1
While as if A=.99
.99=.99

A = 10/9A - 1/9A => A = A => .999 = .999

[ericsp23]

There is no context in which 2+2=5 can be considered a true statement without adding other elements which were not specified in the original question. That is because the symbols '2' and '5' are simple symbols that have a one for one correspondence with a particular value as do all the symbols 0 through 9. Any mathematical system has to have some defined basic units which are unambiguous and not open to interpretation. Any system that does not would quickly fall into chaos and would not tell us anything meaningful.

That being said, I can think of a particular context in which the statement 2+2=10 can be considered a true statement.

[EndersGame]

10/9A - 1/9A = A
A=.999
10/(9*.999) - 1/(9*.999)=.999
10/8.991-1/8.991=.999
aprox 1.11 - 0.11=.999
1=.999


p.s i did approx bcause 1.11 and 0.11 followed the same numerical sequence except one was a digit behind so it would ahve ended up to 1 anyways no matter how many decimals i put

Anyways my point is math is not infallible since we were both mathematically correct so MAYBE 2+2=5 might be possible somehow

[Ghumanto]

Ask any Politician !
It's always their game to make it 2+2=5 or 2+2=3.