2+2=5, for extremely large values of 2.
What do you think?
Honestly i dont know what to think!
Let me see…, are you assuming that the number 2, metaphoracly speaking, is or could be like some kind of space dilatation??? Then the number 2 must be the result of a much more complex equation where that equation would be the mathematical representation of that part of space we are talking about! Also, that equation would have to be enough dinamic to be able to suport all the changes that the part of space that she represents could suffer! Hhmmm… it´s a good point of view, i guess, if that is what you were talking about??? Is it? 
1+1=1, if you are adding clouds.
there are no extremely large values of 2.
what you could say is x + x = 3x for extremely large values of x. it would be true then, too.
Same idea here.
Maybe there are instances, when you can add 2 with 2 and export result 5, but in the clear mathematics the answer is 4.
Is there such a thing as extreme value of a number?
no. an number has no extreme, or common, or exceptional, or extraordinarily rendited values. it has a value, and that’s good enough for it.
people just can’t be bother to understand what they are talking about most of the time.
Thanks. I was gonna spend a couple of hours researching this extreme value that Skydaemon is talking about. 
Zeno is so pleasant…
Ok try this one… what is does 1.99999(repeating) + 1.99999(repeating) equal? 4 or 3.999999 (repeating)
or in other words… how do you go from 1.999(repeating) to 2 by ‘counting’
Numbers are played out… abstract thinking is SO in right now.
1.9999(repeating) is not a rational number. therefore, it can not be counted.
the simpler example is the request to count to i. (you know, as in sqrt(-1) )
That’s not counting… that’s square rooting.
My point is that numbers appear to be individual… when in fact they’re all part of the same abstract spectrum.
gobbo, that didn’t make sense.
now i know it makes you happy to think you can blunder around any place of rational thought, pretend you can talk your way out of anything because you’re just smart and informed like that.
fact of the matter is, you aren’t. words like “abstract spectrum” when applied to the theory of numbers denote nothing at all (or at least nothing at all about your subject, they do say something about you).
and my request was “count to i”, just like your request was “count to 1.9999”. if you want to change the problem in mid air, just tell yourself that’s not counting, thats fractions.
numbers are not individual, in the sense that they don’t recognize themselves as themselves. they are however not negotiably set once and for all. ie defined.
Zoolander!!
Your request to count to i? Who gives a shit… you requested it, and then answered it yourself (THATS changing the problem in midair). Counting to i is totally missing MY point… don’t get mad at me cause you can’t see that.
Actually get mad all you want… just write it on your litte site instead of here .
“Almost all natural numbers are very, very, very large.”
(mathworld.wolfram.com/FrivolousT … metic.html)
Therefore 2+2=5 for extremely small values of 2…
If you begin with the assertion
2+2 = 5
You can transform the equation
4 = 5
0 = 1
From there you can go anywhere you want to, using correctly applied mathematical operators, provided that the result is false. The only way to get a true result from that original falsehood would be to multiply by zero (which is why the inverse operation - dividing by zero, can yield false results from true equations).
1.99999 … can be modeled as lim(2-1/10^x, x->inf)
using that definition 1.99999… is actually equal to 2.
(2-1/10^x) + (2-1/10^x) = 4 - 2/10^x
lim(4-2/10^x, x-inf) = 4, as expected.
1x + 1x = 3x is also false. It reduces to 1=0, the basic mathematical falsehood for all answers but the trivial x=0.
So, how does that show extreme value of something?
“extreme value” what the heck is that anyway ?
math is not like your girlfriend, or your day to day interaction. not any word can be used about any object. actually, the list of words that can be meaningfully used for any given object is relatively short, and completely explicitly defined. which is why computers are so good at math, and why you don’t need a common language to understand a matematician.
Hi to All:
I particularly liked the MRM1101 post and zeno as usual is right, except about computers which actually suck at math.
2 : 1
well, i guess it depends exactly what is ment by math ed. i ment it more like calculus (exotic, i know 
). i agree they don’t get fundamental math at all.