Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Chuzzlewit who wrote (38097)	5/12/1999 4:13:00 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Wrong. 11 base 3 may represent that same number of physical items as 4 base 10. But when we say 2 + 2 = 4 we are saying something generalized, not that 2 apples + 2 apples = 4 apples. 2 + 2 = 4 is a pure abstract mathematical statement and is true ONLY for systems of base 5 and above, and only then for integer bases (though I've never actually contemplated a fractional base. Hmmm. Worth contemplating. Why can't there be a base 3/16 system?). So as I said, 2 + 2 = 4 ONLY applies where you set the correct definitions and assumptions (base 5 and above being one of them, the + sign being defined as a sign for the additive process and not the subtractive process, etc.) If you say it's just semantics, I go back to my earlier point, that ALL human thought is just semantics.