# 2 2+2=5

1. May 6, 2007

### sancho2007

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. May 6, 2007

### cristo

Staff Emeritus
Large values of 2?? Huh?? $2+2\neq 5$

3. May 6, 2007

### Xezlec

That is an old joke. It's not true. "Large values of 2" means nothing.

4. May 6, 2007

### sancho2007

but 2 has large value sometimes. why not?
sometimes some experimental parameters also have large values?

5. May 6, 2007

### Office_Shredder

Staff Emeritus
Yes, and if it has a value greater than two, it just might sum with itself to 5. The actual equation is meaningless though

6. May 6, 2007

### cristo

Staff Emeritus
But 2 is not a "parameter"-- it is a number, and thus takes only the value 2!

7. May 6, 2007

### Integral

Staff Emeritus
There is no physics nor is there any math behind that statement. It is simply an old joke.

8. May 6, 2007

### Cyrus

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.

9. May 6, 2007

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.

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.

10. May 6, 2007

### dontdisturbmycircles

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
11. May 6, 2007

### Cyrus

Ah yes, of course. Only when the skew-symmetric, non-invertible mass-matrix is in place, or det(A)=cross(J,F).

12. May 6, 2007

### cristo

Staff Emeritus
Damn.. forgot about that. Good spot, cyrus.

13. May 6, 2007

### dontdisturbmycircles

lol

text

14. May 6, 2007

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.

15. May 6, 2007

### Jimmy Snyder

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.

16. May 6, 2007

### G01

:rofl: :rofl:

17. May 6, 2007