# Fun With Math And Science

## This is just some interesting permutations of 2 + 2 = 5. This is not hacking related, rather, more of "out of the box" thinking.

Before you read on, I would like to state:

This article is not hacking related and is really more of an interesting thing to read, hence its placement in "other".

I was reading today a proof for 2 + 2 = 5 and have come up with some fun looking derivatives of it that would make any college math teacher squirm and any college science teacher proud.

2 + 2 = 5 based on significant figures. Since the numbers do not have a trailing period, indicating precision, you can reasonably assume that 2 and 5 are off by a margin of error of within

plus or minus .5.

Therefore 2 + 2 = 5 assuming that 2.5 + 2.5 = 5.

Now, you can also realize that the 5 is mutable in this equation and end with

2.333 + 2.333 = 4.6667. In this case the numbers are only off by 1/3.

To continue on this path and get closer to the actual number, I will bisect 2 into two 1's.

1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 5, assuming that

1.2 + 1.2 + 1.2 + 1.2 = 4.8.

In this case, we are only off by 1/5.

And finally, the version that will blow any 8 year olds mind and cause a college student to doubt all of his education:

1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1

1.111 + 1.111 + 1.111 + 1.111 = .889 + .889 + .889 + .889 + .889

As you can see four 1's are equal to five 1's.

The numbers in this final case are off only by 1/9, or .11111 repeating. This is a rather good amount of precision allows for the sides to match.

Sources:

System showed me this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_+_two_=_five#Significant_digits

Which made me think of this stuff.

Disclaimer:

I am not responsible for any laws of mathematics or physics that you break by applying information in this article. Any disruptions of time/space are NOT my fault. You assume all the risk.

This article is not hacking related and is really more of an interesting thing to read, hence its placement in "other".

I was reading today a proof for 2 + 2 = 5 and have come up with some fun looking derivatives of it that would make any college math teacher squirm and any college science teacher proud.

2 + 2 = 5 based on significant figures. Since the numbers do not have a trailing period, indicating precision, you can reasonably assume that 2 and 5 are off by a margin of error of within

plus or minus .5.

Therefore 2 + 2 = 5 assuming that 2.5 + 2.5 = 5.

Now, you can also realize that the 5 is mutable in this equation and end with

2.333 + 2.333 = 4.6667. In this case the numbers are only off by 1/3.

To continue on this path and get closer to the actual number, I will bisect 2 into two 1's.

1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 5, assuming that

1.2 + 1.2 + 1.2 + 1.2 = 4.8.

In this case, we are only off by 1/5.

And finally, the version that will blow any 8 year olds mind and cause a college student to doubt all of his education:

1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1

1.111 + 1.111 + 1.111 + 1.111 = .889 + .889 + .889 + .889 + .889

As you can see four 1's are equal to five 1's.

The numbers in this final case are off only by 1/9, or .11111 repeating. This is a rather good amount of precision allows for the sides to match.

Sources:

System showed me this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_+_two_=_five#Significant_digits

Which made me think of this stuff.

Disclaimer:

I am not responsible for any laws of mathematics or physics that you break by applying information in this article. Any disruptions of time/space are NOT my fault. You assume all the risk.

Comments

system_meltdownon March 08 2008 - 23:50:19 Yay for disproving shizzle 0.999 recurring = 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...) |

SwartMumbaon March 09 2008 - 00:18:15 1+1=10. Mathematics is a human concept. Outside of humans, maths does not exist. This concept was made because it was logically proven and that is how we evaluate a concept of truth. Everything boils down to perception, as nothing is for certain. Is the glass half full, half empty, is the glass twice too big, or does it even exist? What we think is what matters and nothing else. Interesting read. |

Intocksifyon March 09 2008 - 00:23:29 Very interesting. I never thought about the decimal's absence. Thanks for this! |

Skunkfooton March 09 2008 - 00:34:12 Wow, Swart, that's some very deep stuff you're saying, and completely true too! I hope the other people allow themselves to understand things the way we do... |

uberfishon March 11 2008 - 02:11:16 you could look at it in terms of pregnancies whereas women have multiple children... 1 + 1= 8 |

Uber0non March 11 2008 - 06:48:09 I don't agree with this - if you're given something like 2+2 you normally don't have a margin. You can't just assume there's a margin and then add any decimals you want. Or if I should edit what you said; Since the numbers do not have a trailing period, indicating precision, you can reasonably assume that 2 and 5 actually means 2 and 5. |

spywareon March 13 2008 - 11:29:29 I agree with SwartMumba. Mathematics is simply a designed complex structure without actual meaning. The decimal point structure is fucked up and wrong, something like that shouldn't exist in a structure full of logic. It's merely a flaw. |

Uber0non March 13 2008 - 19:06:19 @Spyware: You mean there shouldn't be any positive numbers less than 1? :right: |

spywareon March 15 2008 - 02:34:16 I merely suggested that we should devise another way to write numbers down. |

dex_poeton March 17 2008 - 03:57:07 It's just a scientific way of dealing with shitty measurements. That is also why you see a lot of scientific studies that have a ".0" or “.0000” at the end. And 2 + 2 does not equal 5. It can, but really 2 + 2 ~ 1.5-2.49 + 1.5-2.49 (any number between 1.5 and 2.49). Also, 1.0 + 1.23 does not equal 2.23, it equals 2.2. If it is not specified, you assume it was not measured. Fun. |

ThorsDecreeon March 22 2008 - 06:12:20 I saw a proof once that 1==0, but it didn't work because you can't divide by 0 Interesting read there ^^, I really like numbers... Taking discrete math next year, I might do something with number theory in college... |

DBDWarrioron April 01 2008 - 23:29:32 amazingly clever. math rules haha.:happy: |

burnerhackeron April 08 2008 - 11:47:12 Never Wound what you cannot kill! |

dex_poeton April 12 2008 - 06:26:35 @ Last 2, It's not clever, it is common sense solution for bad measurements. It's more science than math. And if you think it's "clever" you could like... read more on it... god forbid that ever happen. |

rollingon May 02 2008 - 18:06:47 Wikipedia is not allowed by colleges for a reason. You cannot always go by what you get from there even if it is one of the best resources. Typing a period after a letter produces a subscript while typing a period after a number produces a decimal point. A number that is rounded usually has two tildes ontop of another for it to represent about. Maybe i'm wrong but I also disagree. I suppose playing around with it is cute but i don't think this is in a technical form accurate. |

AlphaXon July 02 2008 - 09:43:53 I believe I understand it but I doubt I do bcuz of as far as I can tell it looks like some intelligent 7yr old who just understood the concepts of math and science discovered this. No offense to this theory I just doubt I entirely understand it. Someone care to pm me a dumbed down as possible explanation? |

Post Comment

**Sorry.**

You must have completed the challenge

**Basic 1**and have

**100 points**or more, to be able to post.