[Edited to fix a typo in the original where I wrote 'reply' rather than 'rely'.] Regarding the 2.4 + 2.4 example, I think it is worth spelling out the trick involved. Claiming that 2 + 2 = 5 because you applied rounding to each of the numbers in 2.4 + 2.4 = 4.8 involves applying rounding to each number that appears in the equation whilst ignoring what the + sign actually does.
It's like thinking you can translate a sentence from English to French by taking each individual word and finding a French equivalent - this ignores the context each word occurs in and will result in embarassing mistakes in fairly short order if you rely on it. Likewise "rounding" the 2.4s to 2s and the 4.8 to 5 involves ignoring context of the + and = signs appearing in between them and might lead you to claim that 2 + 2 = 5...
I'd expect this sort of thing from a defective chatbot rather than a human!
Many years ago, I had occasion to read Russian mathematics. A phrase that often occurred was “kak izvestno” (как известно), which means “as is known.” That is, the same as the American “you know.”
When I asked a Russian mathematician what the significance of the phrase was, he laughed and said, “The proof is too long and/or difficult. So you work it out.”
Marxists always lie, even about math now apparently, and they ruin everything they touch. I wonder if this ijbailey character can even balance his bank account unassisted.
I think he may be a full-blown narcissist. There are plenty of replies in that thread from him that amount to “why do you think you get to set the rules” — as if the rules of mathematics are subject to change by him.
I think you have to be to publicly state something that outrageously stupid. However, finding that out conclusively involves a trip to a planet I do not care to visit.
I came across the Twitter thread on my feed and wondered how people have so much time between their moral outrage addiction about the world, rage posting, and important performative activism to break math rules and tweet nonsense thread about it. Kudos for your patients and methodical takedown of alternate/dissociated reality maths.
That Twitter thread is infuriating. I think there’s no question that at least hypothesis #2 applies in this case. Here’s what I think the author is hoping: Most people are not particularly well educated in science, sadly. But even they generally recognize that math lends itself to more certainty than biology. (As a biologist by training myself, I’ll be the first to recognize that my field is “squishier” than the “harder” sciences.) So, by casting doubt on something that even non-scientists think they know for sure (2+2=4) in a field like math that is known for its absolute truths, posters/activists further open the window to sowing doubt regarding things people thought they knew for sure (there are two sexes, and individual mammals can’t switch from one to the other) in a field they know is less prone to absolutes.
While i obviously agree with you, I think that your conclusion on bullshit 3 is weaker than the others -- per your reasoning, 2 + 2 just has to equal any number one greater than a multiple of 3, not just 4.
In that, I am showing what it means that people regular see "2+2 equals one in mod 3." If you think you can give a better explanation of modular arithmetic that will be clear to readers who aren't math loving people and that they will actually read, I absolutely invite you to try. As someone with a math series who can see the statistics on how quickly any math at all makes people stop reading, by all means, show me how it's done. Enlighten me on the correct way to write about math for an audience who doesn't particularly enjoy it. I await your example. I want to see some thing that explains a modular arithmetic in-depth and without any potential nitpicks that a person who knows Math deeply could pick out, and I want it written in such a way that non-Math-lovers will read to the end.
Edited to add: make sure that, to cover the loophole you yourself have pointed out, that you explain congruence classes and the ways that they are different from operators like the +, but again, you must perfectly straddle the fence between too much (that will cause people who aren't deeply into Math to give up and not continue to read) and not enough, since I will certainly be looking for a loophole of the sort that you have pointed out in order to discredit your overall conclusion if you leave one. Get busy!
[Edited to fix a typo in the original where I wrote 'reply' rather than 'rely'.] Regarding the 2.4 + 2.4 example, I think it is worth spelling out the trick involved. Claiming that 2 + 2 = 5 because you applied rounding to each of the numbers in 2.4 + 2.4 = 4.8 involves applying rounding to each number that appears in the equation whilst ignoring what the + sign actually does.
It's like thinking you can translate a sentence from English to French by taking each individual word and finding a French equivalent - this ignores the context each word occurs in and will result in embarassing mistakes in fairly short order if you rely on it. Likewise "rounding" the 2.4s to 2s and the 4.8 to 5 involves ignoring context of the + and = signs appearing in between them and might lead you to claim that 2 + 2 = 5...
I'd expect this sort of thing from a defective chatbot rather than a human!
Re: The proof is left to the reader
Many years ago, I had occasion to read Russian mathematics. A phrase that often occurred was “kak izvestno” (как известно), which means “as is known.” That is, the same as the American “you know.”
When I asked a Russian mathematician what the significance of the phrase was, he laughed and said, “The proof is too long and/or difficult. So you work it out.”
Marxists always lie, even about math now apparently, and they ruin everything they touch. I wonder if this ijbailey character can even balance his bank account unassisted.
I think he may be a full-blown narcissist. There are plenty of replies in that thread from him that amount to “why do you think you get to set the rules” — as if the rules of mathematics are subject to change by him.
I think you have to be to publicly state something that outrageously stupid. However, finding that out conclusively involves a trip to a planet I do not care to visit.
I came across the Twitter thread on my feed and wondered how people have so much time between their moral outrage addiction about the world, rage posting, and important performative activism to break math rules and tweet nonsense thread about it. Kudos for your patients and methodical takedown of alternate/dissociated reality maths.
That Twitter thread is infuriating. I think there’s no question that at least hypothesis #2 applies in this case. Here’s what I think the author is hoping: Most people are not particularly well educated in science, sadly. But even they generally recognize that math lends itself to more certainty than biology. (As a biologist by training myself, I’ll be the first to recognize that my field is “squishier” than the “harder” sciences.) So, by casting doubt on something that even non-scientists think they know for sure (2+2=4) in a field like math that is known for its absolute truths, posters/activists further open the window to sowing doubt regarding things people thought they knew for sure (there are two sexes, and individual mammals can’t switch from one to the other) in a field they know is less prone to absolutes.
There Are Four Lights!
While i obviously agree with you, I think that your conclusion on bullshit 3 is weaker than the others -- per your reasoning, 2 + 2 just has to equal any number one greater than a multiple of 3, not just 4.
In that, I am showing what it means that people regular see "2+2 equals one in mod 3." If you think you can give a better explanation of modular arithmetic that will be clear to readers who aren't math loving people and that they will actually read, I absolutely invite you to try. As someone with a math series who can see the statistics on how quickly any math at all makes people stop reading, by all means, show me how it's done. Enlighten me on the correct way to write about math for an audience who doesn't particularly enjoy it. I await your example. I want to see some thing that explains a modular arithmetic in-depth and without any potential nitpicks that a person who knows Math deeply could pick out, and I want it written in such a way that non-Math-lovers will read to the end.
Edited to add: make sure that, to cover the loophole you yourself have pointed out, that you explain congruence classes and the ways that they are different from operators like the +, but again, you must perfectly straddle the fence between too much (that will cause people who aren't deeply into Math to give up and not continue to read) and not enough, since I will certainly be looking for a loophole of the sort that you have pointed out in order to discredit your overall conclusion if you leave one. Get busy!