Changing someone's mind is very difficult, that's why I like puzzles most people get wrong: to try to open their mind. Challenging the claim that 2+2
is unequivocally 4
is one of my favorites to get people to reconsider what they think is true with 100% certainty.
2+2 = not what you think
felipec.substack.com
- 204
- -34
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
That's not how modular arithmetic works: 2+2=4 is still true, it's just that 4=0 mod 4, so 2+2=0 is also true.
Even if your example were true, that would just be notation confusion: The statement commonly meant by 2+2=4 is always true. So if I say 2+2=4 is always true, I'm correct, and if you say 2+2=? and the answer isn't 4 you're just communicating badly by omitting relevant information about the problem statement. In honest conversation this doesn't change anything.
There is no
4
inmodulo 4
, you are confusing the modulo operation with modular arithmetic, they are two different concepts that lead to the same result.I'm not, neither of us was talking about the modulo operation (I was using mod 4 to denote I'm operating in the congruence class ring).
And the article about modular arithmetic agrees with me. Choice quote:
It may be represented that way, but they are not the same thing.
You yourself accepted here that
4 (sa)
is not the same statement as4 (mod 4)
.So your claim that
4 (sa) = 0 (mod 4)
is just plainly false.4 and 0 are equivalent as representants of the residue class. If you can write down 2+2 where 2 refers to a residue class, the answer can be written down as 4.
How many times do I have to ask you to stop misquoting me?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link