<p>:P How do you prove that 2+2=5? My teachers say that is possible. oo;;; I can't figure out how. This is not a math homework. Just kind of curious how do you get 2+2 and the answer came out to be 5 instead of 4. :] Have fun solving this!</p>
<p>you could just use sig figs...</p>
<p>also, i suppose it would be basically the same as proving 1 = 2 or 0 = 1(i have a really cool proof for this involving recursive integration by parts) except you add a constant at the end...</p>
<p>2+2=5 for extremely large values of 2.</p>
<p>2+2=5 because Big Brother said so:)</p>
<p>First you prove 0 = 1 (through the process where you have to divide by 0 at some point, but don't tell the viewer that) and then do:</p>
<p>2 + 2 = 4. Since 0 = 1, add 0 to left side and add 1 to right.</p>
<p>That's how I'd do it.</p>
<p>Or Big Brother works too I guess...</p>
<p>:)</p>
<p>say i want to find int(dx/x)|abs(x)>0 -- lets try integration by parts</p>
<p>u = 1/x :. du = -dx/x^2
dv = dx :. v = x</p>
<p>int(dx/x) = uv - int(vdu) = (1/x)x - int(x(-dx/x^2))
int(dx/x) = 1 + int(dx/x)
:. 0 = 1</p>
<p>QED</p>
<p>where was the division by 0? :-P</p>
<p>Ok, so instead of dividing by zero, you took the integral of a non-differentiable, non continuous area...</p>
<p>Nice.</p>
<p>:)</p>
<p>besides, it seems that u went through a lot to make an error... integral of dx/x is just lnx...</p>
<p>2+2=5 is my scientific theory established after extensive analysis and experimentation. I call it "Mo's Theory of Number Addition" I am also known as the "Big Brother" :)</p>
<p>I heard you prove it in grad school. My teacher said something about using group theories and topology. man i first thought you were talking about radiohead's 2+2=5 song. oh well :)</p>
<p>i think you made a typo and really meant 4 where you wrote 5</p>
<p>There's a user on cc: 2+2=5 is his name..or her</p>
<p>HiWei, you can take the integral of a non-continuous, non-differentiable function: that would be an improper integral, which certainly does exist. The problem of that integration does not lie there, but herein it lies: it was an indefinite integral, so any constant of integration would fall into c. When both sides of the equation are constants, all you are saying is c1=c2, which certainly holds true for some values of c1 and c2. Therefore, that integration fails to prove 1 = 0.</p>
<p>I think we would have to go deeper into mathematics to find a proof for 1 = 0.</p>
<p>what happens if i make it a definite integral though(not through 0 because then it diverges)?</p>
<p>then there isnt a constant.</p>
<p>cujoe, whats to say i cant use another method though?</p>
<p>que, if it were a definite integral, then u * v, which is x/x, will become 0 regardless of which interval you use. Therein lies your divide by 0.</p>
<p>:D</p>
<p>space..</p>
<p>LMAO Big Brother. :] Hey thanks Wei! LOL Fae I didn't make a typo. :P I'm not dumb. Just curious how it would worked. ^_^ Anyway thanks you guys! LOL Prim, big bro! Ha! That's funny! >O! [Runs]</p>
<p>Radiohead Rulezzzz</p>
<p>here's how</p>
<p>are you such a dreamer?
to put the world to rights
i'll stay home forever
where two and two
always makes five</p>
<p>i'll lay down the tracks
sandbag and hide
january has april showers
and two and two
always makes five</p>
<p>it's the devil's way now
there's no way out
you can scream and you can shout
it is too late now
because you haven't been paying attention!</p>
<p>Paying Attention
Paying Attention
Paying Attention
Paying Attention
Paying Attention
Because
You Have Not Been
Paying Attention
Paying Attentionpaying Attentionpaying Attention
Paying Attention
Paying Attention
Paying Attentionpaying Attention</p>