Hello Ron,
> The statement is, "2 + 2 = 5 for very large values of 2." It's a joke
> about rounding and estimating.
<snip>
> math is meaningless until an absolute is assumed.you have to have
> a cut-off To precipitate a round then you may reach an absolute 1. but
> does reality have a cut-off point To cause a rounding? Averaging is the
> closest we can come to any kind of precision.
Ron, I see your approach to the math as saying (x) + (y) = (x+y) where
is the function that rounds to the nearest whole number. So if x = 2.4 then
(x) = 2. And if y = 2.3 then (y) = 2. And if x + y = 4.7 then (x + y) = 5.
In this way your approach can say 2 + 2 = 5. But look at your assumption.
You assume a truth where there is none. (x) + (y) does not always equal
(x+y) where is the function that rounds to the nearest whole number.
I also see in your approach a misapplication of tolerances. In other words
the statement 2 + 2 = 5 is a misapplication of 2±½ + 2±½ = 4±1. Notice
how the two ±½s combine to become ±1. So 2.4 + 2.3 = 4.7 is conveyed
as 2±½ + 2±½ = 4±1 not 2 + 2 = 5.
Hope this helps.
Kevin
---------------------------------
Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.
moq_discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
