← Home ← Back to /sci/

Thread 16702557

10 posts 6 images /sci/
Anonymous No.16702557 [Report] >>16702569 >>16702617 >>16702841 >>16704059 >>16704126 >>16704213 >>16704670
2+2=5
Anonymous No.16702569 [Report]
>>16702557 (OP)
quick mafhs
Dave No.16702617 [Report]
>>16702557 (OP)
>2+2=5

I know rite m8
Anonymous No.16702841 [Report]
>>16702557 (OP)
cool it with the pro semitism
Anonymous No.16704059 [Report] >>16704425
>>16702557 (OP)
okay terrence
Anonymous No.16704126 [Report]
>>16702557 (OP)
no it doesnt.... idoit
Anonymous No.16704213 [Report] >>16704301
>>16702557 (OP)
If we define Succ(Succ(Succ(Succ(0))) as 5, then sure.
Anonymous No.16704301 [Report]
>>16704213
>Succ(Succ(Succ(Succ(0)))
that's some good head
Anonymous No.16704425 [Report]
>>16704059
There is a conceptual frame here, so he is wrong in his abstract case, because the fundamental root of an n-dimension is the n-dimensional point and because of telic recursion the precession of some moment of flux is 'bilateral.' So the general case is not 1x1 = 2 but a unit interaction is not reducible to 1.
Anonymous No.16704670 [Report]
>>16702557 (OP)
It's wild to me when people who are intelligent think so much and come full circle to what does 2+2 equal