BillB
Posts: 388
Joined: Aug. 2009
|
| Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 15 2010,23:50) | | Quote (BillB @ Sep. 15 2010,16:45) | As a scientist who is terminally bad at maths I've found BarryR's contribution to UD enlightening - Good work!
KF: | Quote | | As has been repeatedly pointed out above [e.g. cf 187 - 191], MF, the notion that 2 + 2 = 4 can be shown “wrong” by shifting “axioms” in midstream is a gross confusion rooted in the blatant error of substituting a novel redefinition of the “”+” operator; creating an unnecessary and blatant contradiction where + is now held to at once mean two different things that deny one another. |
KF should look at his watch - if it says 11 and you add 14 you get 1, not 25
got that: 11+14=1
In the same fashion 300+70=10 (if you are talking about angles measured in degrees)
Like I said, I'm rubbish at maths but even I can understand that! |
Not only that, but you can make 2 + 2 = 11 just by working in base 3. |
Quite true but for people who's understanding of maths doesn't extend much beyond counting stones, base n is a concept that needs explaining whereas a clock is a concrete example.
For people like me who struggle with this stuff having some concrete examples to ground the concept is very handy - although I realise that it is pretty difficult to ground some of the more pure maths this way!
|
