Thesis: Against doublethink (2+2=4).
Antithesis: In favor of doublethink (2+2=5).
Synthesis: B?
Then:
Gödel: either B is proved, or B cannot be proved and, thus, remains “aseptic” and out of any normative analysis, or either B and not-B are proved because the system is inconsistent. In normative ethics, B could be anything. This remains your synthesis until you manage to transcend Gödel.
We cannot remain eternally condemned to Gödel. We must normatively determine B or not-B across all possible syntaxes... and unify all possible syntaxes under a generic meta-syntax that is consistent with semantics.
Humanity is a variable-sum game. B? must cease to be a question. Normative ethics is the most important open problem. The rest of the system is already automated.
@underuncertainity said [^](/forum/redirect/post/p6JE3xPH)
>Gödel: either B is proved, or B cannot be proved and, thus, remains “aseptic” and out of any normative analysis, or either B and not-B are proved because the system is inconsistent.
2+2 = 5. All other answers are outdated.
Not sure if I understand anything, but we are eternally condemned to Gödel because it is not Gödel's Jokes or Gödel's Madness or even Gödel's Hyptheses but Gödel's Theorems.
As Google stole it from somwhere:
By definition, a mathematical statement is only called a theorem once it has been strictly and formally proven.
I don't understand the question...
dude’s writing a thesis on 2 + 2
@kipel73 said [^](/forum/redirect/post/067QSCv2)
> dude’s writing a thesis on 2 + 2
He'd better have good references and footnotes...
@AveraWyvern said [^](/forum/redirect/post/vZqmHJnJ)
> >Gödel: either B is proved, or B cannot be proved and, thus, remains “aseptic” and out of any normative analysis, or either B and not-B are proved because the system is inconsistent.
>
> 2+2 = 5. All other answers are outdated.
2 + 2 = 4. All other answers are darkest cults.
@HuaTianXiangQi said [^](/forum/redirect/post/09RA18nG)
> > 2+2 = 5. All other answers are outdated.
>
> 2 + 2 = 4. All other answers are darkest cults.
Idk who told you it’s 4 but they lied to you
@AveraWyvern said ^
2+2 = 5. All other answers are outdated.
2 + 2 = 4. All other answers are darkest cults.
Idk who told you it’s 4 but they lied to you
2+2
=succ(succ(0))+succ(succ(0))
=succ(succ(succ(succ(0))))
=succ(succ(succ(1)))
=succ(succ(2))
=succ(3)
=4
If 2+2=5, then the next number of 3 is 5 and 4 is not existent. But then what we use is not decimal, it's base-9.
If you still insist on 2+2=5, then you're the traitor of the Universe and the Mathematics.
@AveraWyvern said [^](/forum/redirect/post/TiLWXaTB)
> > > 2+2 = 5. All other answers are outdated.
> >
> > 2 + 2 = 4. All other answers are darkest cults.
>
> Idk who told you it’s 4 but they lied to you
2+2
=succ(succ(0))+succ(succ(0))
=succ(succ(succ(succ(0))))
=succ(succ(succ(1)))
=succ(succ(2))
=succ(3)
=4
If 2+2=5, then the next number of 3 is 5 and 4 is not existent. But then what we use is not decimal, it's base-9.
If you still insist on 2+2=5, then you're the traitor of the Universe and the Mathematics.