Normative ethics in another 2+2=4? post

@KhrivenilSSP said ^

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.

Damn that’s crazy. Anyway it’s 5 ;)

@AveraWyvern said ^

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.

Damn that’s crazy. Anyway it’s 5 ;)

Then you must admit either 2+2=4 or I am you. Since if 2+2=5 then 1=2, thus 2=1.

@KhrivenilSSP said ^

Damn that’s crazy. Anyway it’s 5 ;)

Then you must admit either 2+2=4 or I am you. Since if 2+2=5 then 1=2, thus 2=1.

If you are me then you should know I'm still right and it's 5

@AveraWyvern said ^

Damn that’s crazy. Anyway it’s 5 ;)

Then you must admit either 2+2=4 or I am you. Since if 2+2=5 then 1=2, thus 2=1.

If you are me then you should know I'm still right and it's 5

If I am you I will no longer try to break the basic principle of mathematics.

@KhrivenilSSP said ^

If you are me then you should know I'm still right and it's 5

If I am you I will no longer try to break the basic principle of mathematics.

Sounds like something someone who isn't me would say lmao

@AveraWyvern said ^

If you are me then you should know I'm still right and it's 5

If I am you I will no longer try to break the basic principle of mathematics.

Sounds like something someone who isn't me would say lmao

You look like a being who always says 1+1=3.

@KhrivenilSSP said ^

Sounds like something someone who isn't me would say lmao

You look like a being who always says 1+1=3.

It’s 5, it's really not that deep but keep crying about it lmao

@KhrivenilSSP

We must be "traitors" of the Universe and Mathematics. What is the use of math given that we can't define normative ethics? What is the actual state of the "Universe" if the Universe itself does not have the intrinsic property of a consistent system of normative ethics?

If the Universe and Mathematics do not solve normative ethics, then both recursively tend to nothingness.

The Universe and Mathematics MUST find a way to solve normative ethics.

If you don't agree, just keep moving forward with the system the way it is... automated the way it already is... while you are being just an agent more of the automation. Keep doing Mathematics and being part of the "Universe" that does not have the intrinsec property of a consistent system of normative ethics.

Good luck,

Crazy thread lol
But well written!

@AveraWyvern said ^

Sounds like something someone who isn't me would say lmao

You look like a being who always says 1+1=3.

It’s 5, it's really not that deep but keep crying about it lmao

Given two disjoint sets {a, b} and {c, d}. Take their union—how many elements are in the resulting set? If there are 5, what is the 5th element? E? But there isn't any e.