Who says 2 x 2 = 4?

Answer 1

listen to what hes saying people. pretty much, someone tells u all ur years of school that this is this and that is that, but for real, who really knows if its true. dont make sense to me neither man

Answer 2

In a number system of base 3, 2 x 2 = 11. The people who say 2 x 2 = 4 are the people who define our number system to be of a base greater than or equal to 4.

Answer 3

Don't get confused by those symbols. They're really meaningless unless you ask a mathematician what they correspond to...in reality. I think what you are looking for is an EXPERIENCE. I suggest that those symbols correspond to a particular EXPERIENCE.

Our symbols and language do not have any direct connection with REALITY, unless we give them that connection.

But instead of the EXPERIENCE, you have been presented with an equation, which is really just something akin to hieroglyphics.

Perhaps what you're asking is really like 'What is $@$^* ?' In that case, associate an experience with $@$^* Then you'll have your answer....

However, you could be asking something like..."Well, I know what the symbols mean. I know what 2, * , 4, = means. I also know what 2 * 2 = 4 means as a whole....I'm not disputing the meaning...I just want to know who says 2 * 2 = 4. "

I answer that you must be the one who says that 2 * 2 = 4, since you obviously know what it means. If you don't, ask a mathematician, or assign your own meaning.

But just remember that EXPERIENCES are what really count in life.

Answer 4

I don't know. But I do know who said that the only two innate ideas we can accept with certainty are those that assert that

1) 2 + 3 ALWAYS equal 5 and
2) The square can never have more than 4 sides

French philosopher René Descartes came up with this concept in the same book he made that famous assertion that "I think, therefore I am"

Answer 5

Consider the series a:

3.9,3.99,3.999,3.9999,3.99999,...

Now consider a series b constructed such that b(n)*2=a(n):

1.95,1.995,1.9995,1.99995,...

OK now consider the infinite limit of series a. In other words, towards what number does a tend as n->infinity?

Any mathematician will tell you that the answer is 4.

Now consider an element of the series b when n is very large.

We see that whereas you suggest that 2*2=4, in fact:

2 * 1.999...95 = 4

Now go eat some cheese (it is good for your brain).

Answer 6

2 x 2 = 3.6repeated

Answer 7

not sure about the 2 x 2
but there has long been a theory that 2 + 2 = 5
i believe the first to work on this theory was the Dalong tribe in South America who used to count with the aid of knotted rope. they soon noticed that when you combine two 2 knot ropes you get a 5 knot rope :o)

Answer 8

People who say "but of course 2X2=4!" have not taken into consideration the huge assumptions they are making. It takes pages and pages of complex algebraic arguments to "prove" that 2X2=4. Numbers are, after all, mere abstract conceptions. For example, some cultures have no concept of the number "zero". Others hold that the concept of negative numbers is ludicrous (think about it: how can you have "minus one cow"?). There are numbers that do not exist: the square root of minus one is a case in point.

I suggest you read George Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty-Four".

Answer 9

This truth follows form axiomatic system known as Peano Arithmetic.[1]
Where '0' is axiomatically defined, '2' is a successor of a successor of '0' and '4' is a successor of a successor of '2'.
AND if we define '+' recursively in terms of successor and 0, let a+0 = a and a+Sb = S(a+b) for all a, b.[2]
Where S is a successor operation.

Answer 10

It's not logic... it was invented!! people now believe it's logic... maybe 2 by 2 is still 2 or 22... who knows.
Human beings have created language, they decided it was that answer but who knows somewhere else... somebody else.... might think it's different!

Answer 11

The direct answer is: Human mathematicians using base 10 (I assume).

But it is just a model and one most of us are taught from a young age.

As long as we see it is just a model, it's OK to say those symbols make sense.