Is 2+2=5 Possible? Exploring the Physics Behind This Equation

  • Thread starter sancho2007
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Proof
In summary, the conversation revolves around the statement that for large values of 2, 2 + 2 can equal 5 and the question of whether there is any physics or math behind this equation. It is ultimately determined that there is no real significance or meaning behind this statement, and it is simply an old joke. Some discussions about mathematical concepts such as transformation vectors and linear time invariant systems are also mentioned, but it is concluded that there is no relevance to the original question.
  • #1
sancho2007
2
0
some people says that for the large values of 2
2+2=5
is it really true. I mean what is the physics behind this equation.
yours sincerely,
sancho,
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Large values of 2?? Huh?? [itex]2+2\neq 5[/itex]
 
  • #3
sancho2007 said:
some people says that for the large values of 2
2+2=5
is it really true. I mean what is the physics behind this equation.
yours sincerely,
sancho,

That is an old joke. It's not true. "Large values of 2" means nothing.
 
  • #4
but 2 has large value sometimes. why not?
sometimes some experimental parameters also have large values?
 
  • #5
sometimes some experimental parameters also have large values?

Yes, and if it has a value greater than two, it just might sum with itself to 5. The actual equation is meaningless though
 
  • #6
But 2 is not a "parameter"-- it is a number, and thus takes only the value 2!
 
  • #7
There is no physics nor is there any math behind that statement. It is simply an old joke.
 
  • #8
Well, when you take the cross product of the transformation vector in R^n and assume a linear time invariant system then the approximation that 2+2=5 holds in the limit that alpha approaches infinity.
 
  • #9
sancho2007 said:
but 2 has large value sometimes. why not?

Why not? Because 2 isn't a baloon in the shape of number 2 which gets large sometimes because we blow it up some more. :biggrin:

cyrusabdollahi said:
Well, when you take the cross product of the transformation vector in R^n and assume a linear time invariant system then the approximation that 2+2=5 holds in the limit that alpha approaches infinity.

You forgot about the key assumption about the invariant approximation tensor and about the uniform convergence of the gamma-series generated by non-uniform hybrid Laplace members.
 
  • #10
2.3+2.3=4.6 = 5 for 1 sig dig? lol is that maybe what he is getting at? In any case I don't think there is any physics behind this equation

(This is a desperate attempt to try to understand what he meant by "large values of 2" lol)
 
Last edited:
  • #11
radou said:
Why not? Because 2 isn't a baloon in the shape of number 2 which gets large sometimes because we blow it up some more. :biggrin:



You forgot about the key assumption about the invariant approximation tensor and about the uniform convergence of the gamma-series generated by non-uniform hybrid Laplace members.

Ah yes, of course. Only when the skew-symmetric, non-invertible mass-matrix is in place, or det(A)=cross(J,F).
 
  • #12
cyrusabdollahi said:
Well, when you take the cross product of the transformation vector in R^n and assume a linear time invariant system then the approximation that 2+2=5 holds in the limit that alpha approaches infinity.

:approve: Damn.. forgot about that. Good spot, cyrus.
 
  • #13
lol

text
 
  • #14
cyrusabdollahi said:
Ah yes, of course. Only when the skew-symmetric, non-invertible mass-matrix is in place, or det(A)=cross(J,F).

Which implies an obvious isomorphism between Schmidt's dihedral group and the group od positively definite inertia matrices spanned by Van der Haagen's dual basis.

This would be the complete frame-set of the problem.

Now we're talking.
 
  • #15
I think what they are getting at is that since 3 is a large value of 2 and 3 + 3 = 5 (for small values of 3), therefore 2 + 2 = 5.
 
  • #16
cyrusabdollahi said:
Well, when you take the cross product of the transformation vector in R^n and assume a linear time invariant system then the approximation that 2+2=5 holds in the limit that alpha approaches infinity.

:smile: :smile:
 
  • #17
jimmysnyder said:
I think what they are getting at is that since 3 is a large value of 2 and 3 + 3 = 5 (for small values of 3), therefore 2 + 2 = 5.

Exactly. A typical example of diophantine isoparallelism induced by general invariancy.
 

FAQ: Is 2+2=5 Possible? Exploring the Physics Behind This Equation

Can 2+2 ever equal 5 in the physical world?

No, 2+2 will always equal 4 in the physical world. This is a fundamental mathematical principle that is accepted and proven by countless experiments and observations.

Is there any scientific evidence that supports the possibility of 2+2=5?

No, there is no scientific evidence that supports this possibility. In fact, all scientific evidence points to the fact that 2+2 will always equal 4.

What is the significance of this equation in physics?

The equation 2+2=5 has no significance in physics. It is a simple mathematical equation that has no direct relation to any physical laws or principles.

Are there any scenarios in which 2+2 could potentially equal 5?

No, there are no scenarios in which 2+2 could equal 5. As mentioned before, this is a fundamental mathematical principle that is universally accepted and has been proven countless times.

Is it possible that our understanding of mathematics could change in the future and allow for 2+2=5?

While it is always possible for our understanding of mathematics to evolve and change, it is highly unlikely that this would result in 2+2 equaling 5. As long as we adhere to the basic laws of mathematics, 2+2 will always equal 4.

Similar threads

Back
Top