2+2=5

[Meow Mix]

It actually is possible.
2 * 0 + 2 * 0 = 5 * 0
2 * infinity + 2 * infinity = 5 * infinity

You've done it. In one fell swoop you've soundly defeated millennia of humanity's most influential intellectual giants without even breaking a sweat.

/sarcasm

(Normally I'm not this snarky and normally I don't appeal to arguments from authority, but others have already presented how the OP is incorrect so this is just for fun)

 

[Drolefille]

You've done it. In one fell swoop you've soundly defeated millennia of humanity's most influential intellectual giants without even breaking a sweat.

/sarcasm

(Normally I'm not this snarky and normally I don't appeal to arguments from authority, but others have already presented how the OP is incorrect so this is just for fun)

I'm still saying that 2.4444 + 2.4444 = 5

But no one pays attention to me :sad4:

 

[Photonic]

I'm still saying that 2.4444 + 2.4444 = 5

But no one pays attention to me :sad4:

Actually it's 2.44444 +2.44444 ≈ 5

 

[Drolefille]

Actually it's 2.44444 +2.44444 ≈ 5

Don't you bring your squiggly lines into this!:sarcastic

 

[Photonic]

Don't you bring your squiggly lines into this!:sarcastic

:angel2:

 

[Meow Mix]

I'm still saying that 2.4444 + 2.4444 = 5

But no one pays attention to me :sad4:

4.888... =/= 5 though

4.999... = 5

 

[Drolefille]

4.888... =/= 5 though

4.999... = 5

4.888 = 5 it just doesn't equal 5.00000

It's all about the rounding

 

[Tom Terrific]

This looks suspiciously Thelemic in origin.

Didn't Crowley write a treatise with this title?

 

[Debater Slayer]

If division by zero produced meaningful results, anything could equal anything.

Jokes aside though, the equation isn't correct the way it is set up.

 

[9Westy9]

Would infinity ^0 =1 ?

theoretically yes

 

[Photonic]

theoretically yes

Still doesn't = 1.

 

[9Westy9]

Still doesn't = 1.

Infinity is just a massive number. no? Or is that school level understanding?

 

[PolyHedral]

Infinity is just a massive number. no? Or is that school level understanding?

It depends.™ Infinity normally is a size, not a real number, so normal arithmetic doesn't work with it. However, there are some circumstances where it is a thing, and you can do "arithmetic" to it. The simplest of these to understand is the extended number line. However, people generally assume you work on the real number line, where you can't divide by zero or multiply by infinity.

 

[9Westy9]

It depends.™ Infinity normally is a size, not a real number, so normal arithmetic doesn't work with it. However, there are some circumstances where it is a thing, and you can do "arithmetic" to it. The simplest of these to understand is the extended number line. However, people generally assume you work on the real number line, where you can't divide by zero or multiply by infinity.

I see. Thanks

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Isn't infinity, like, just the biggest number that scientists have been able to count to using computers and stuff?

 

[Skwim]

Isn't infinity, like, just the biggest number that scientists have been able to count to using computers and stuff?

Plus 1.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Plus 1.

Yeah, but don't they, like, get to a number that's so big that they don't know what number comes next?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Apart from division by zero or infinity not being defined, and thus not giving you a meaningful answer.

Depends on what system you're using. In most algebras, division is defined as the inverse of multiplication, i.e. a/b=c means the number b such that a=bc. If b is zero, then the only number for the variable a for which the equality relation (a=bc) can remain true is zero. However, the limit of 1/x as x tends toward infinity is zero in both directions (albeit opposite directions). Similarly, with continuous probability density functions the probability of any specific event P(E) is zero, or 1/infinity.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Infinity is just a massive number. no? Or is that school level understanding?

Again, as I said above, it depends on the system or set of definitions you are working with. In standard set theory, it is normal to speak of "infinities" as some are larger than others (without getting into the continuum hypothesis). The countable or denumerable sets (the integers, the rational numbers, etc.) are one type, but irrational numbers are another. There are infinitely more irrational numbers than rational (as Cantor proved).

 

[Photonic]

Yeah, but don't they, like, get to a number that's so big that they don't know what number comes next?

That isn't possible. It would still exist as a real number.

Infinity isn't a real number, it's an abstract concept.

For instance,

84^11293819082374132897478913247891327894613297846172364718326478132647813264861328974617328964981732648917325489713264879632478961239874612346123042304587251785908743095703450970971290387490128734901324347893247893247894789132478912347890123479012347891258943758439751348975781280328908904589056890456890456626522424254324535435341657347312781297281950756016471260572027430122795467452303700122321021032100


That's still a quantifiable number.

Infinity is infinitely larger than even this number.