• credit crazy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Oh so that’s why big brother is telling everyone that 2+2=5 man if only the administry of truth did a better job at explaining his conclusions we wouldn’t have a need to re educate people

  • empireOfLove@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    If 4 did not exist, then you would be using a base-4 quarternary numbering system (which is able to use the numbers 0,1,2,3)

    The system will be similar to how our base 10 numbers work, but instead of counting to 9 before adding a trailing zero and becoming 10, you would count to 3. So 2 plus 2 would roll past 3, and equal 10.

      • empireOfLove@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Technically a base 1 system cannot exist (effectively), because it would mean you were counting from zero (nothing). All base systems for real “math” have to index from null. You couldn’t even count using 0, 00, 000, 0000 because how would you know if the first 0 indicated actually zero, or was it the first item? You could only identify it by the absence of all marks, which doesn’t work in math or any modern setting.

        Number systems are weird. I hate math sometimes.

        • markr@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          In an oddly appropriate way, base 1 simply uses 0s to add a place holder for each counted item. In other words ‘4’ base 1 is ‘0000’. It exists but it defeats the purpose of symbolic representation of counted items by requiring the observer to count the digits.

  • FelipeFelop@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    You’ve inadvertently hit on the beginnings of an apparent paradox to do with the relationship between numbers and the counting numbers

    Suppose the largest number you can have is X and the smallest number you can have is -Y. Then between -Y and X, you can count X+Y numbers which is clearly larger than X. But X is the largest possible number so X+Y doesn’t exist.

    • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      suppose the largest number

      Gotta stop you right there. A largest number doesn’t and can’t exist. If we introduce one, paradoxes arise all over the place and the whole system falls apart.