←back to thread

One Plus One Equals Two (2006)

(blog.plover.com)
76 points lemper | 1 comments | 22 Oct 24 08:21 UTC | HN request time: 0.201s | source
Show context
dvh ◴[22 Oct 24 13:35 UTC] No.41914112[source]▶
1+1=3 (for very large values of 1)
replies(6): >>41914192 #>>41914254 #>>41914313 #>>41914375 #>>41914460 #>>41915170 #
croes ◴[22 Oct 24 13:50 UTC] No.41914254[source]▶
And 1x1=2 according to Terrence Howard
replies(1): >>41915470 #
omeysalvi ◴[22 Oct 24 15:44 UTC] No.41915470[source]▶
Actually, it is a metaphor for formulating a brand new branch of mathematics that fixes the identity principle and all the problems with the square root of two. But also, it is not a metaphor because show me any physical system where an action times an action does not equal a reaction.
replies(4): >>41915584 #>>41915756 #>>41915995 #>>41916176 #
1. feoren ◴[22 Oct 24 15:55 UTC] No.41915584[source]▶
It's actually super easy to form a "brand new branch of mathematics". Just start with some definitions and run with them. Although you'll almost certainly end up with something inconsistent. And if you don't, it'll almost certainly be not useful. And if it is useful, it'll almost certainly turn out to be the exact same math just wearing a costume.

There are no problems with the square root of two.

> show me any physical system where an action times an action does not equal a reaction.

Show me any gazzbok where a thrushbloom minus a grimblegork does not equal a fistelblush. Haha, you can't do it, can you!? I WIN!

That is to say: you're using silly made up definitions of "action" and "times" here.