Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

2 2+2=5

  1. May 6, 2007 #1
    some people says that for the large values of 2
    2+2=5
    is it really true. I mean what is the physics behind this equation.
    yours sincerely,
    sancho,
     
  2. jcsd
  3. May 6, 2007 #2

    cristo

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Large values of 2?? Huh?? [itex]2+2\neq 5[/itex]
     
  4. May 6, 2007 #3
    That is an old joke. It's not true. "Large values of 2" means nothing.
     
  5. May 6, 2007 #4
    but 2 has large value sometimes. why not?
    sometimes some experimental parameters also have large values?
     
  6. May 6, 2007 #5

    Office_Shredder

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Yes, and if it has a value greater than two, it just might sum with itself to 5. The actual equation is meaningless though
     
  7. May 6, 2007 #6

    cristo

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    But 2 is not a "parameter"-- it is a number, and thus takes only the value 2!
     
  8. May 6, 2007 #7

    Integral

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    There is no physics nor is there any math behind that statement. It is simply an old joke.
     
  9. May 6, 2007 #8
    Well, when you take the cross product of the transformation vector in R^n and assume a linear time invariant system then the approximation that 2+2=5 holds in the limit that alpha approaches infinity.
     
  10. May 6, 2007 #9

    radou

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Why not? Because 2 isn't a baloon in the shape of number 2 which gets large sometimes because we blow it up some more. :biggrin:

    You forgot about the key assumption about the invariant approximation tensor and about the uniform convergence of the gamma-series generated by non-uniform hybrid Laplace members.
     
  11. May 6, 2007 #10
    2.3+2.3=4.6 = 5 for 1 sig dig? lol is that maybe what he is getting at? In any case I don't think there is any physics behind this equation

    (This is a desperate attempt to try to understand what he meant by "large values of 2" lol)
     
    Last edited: May 6, 2007
  12. May 6, 2007 #11
    Ah yes, of course. Only when the skew-symmetric, non-invertible mass-matrix is in place, or det(A)=cross(J,F).
     
  13. May 6, 2007 #12

    cristo

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    :approve: Damn.. forgot about that. Good spot, cyrus.
     
  14. May 6, 2007 #13
  15. May 6, 2007 #14

    radou

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Which implies an obvious isomorphism between Schmidt's dihedral group and the group od positively definite inertia matrices spanned by Van der Haagen's dual basis.

    This would be the complete frame-set of the problem.

    Now we're talking.
     
  16. May 6, 2007 #15
    I think what they are getting at is that since 3 is a large value of 2 and 3 + 3 = 5 (for small values of 3), therefore 2 + 2 = 5.
     
  17. May 6, 2007 #16

    G01

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    :rofl: :rofl:
     
  18. May 6, 2007 #17

    radou

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Exactly. A typical example of diophantine isoparallelism induced by general invariancy.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?