Page: 1 | Rating: Unrated [0] |
W:r:1
Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» KeyMiNDer replied on Tue Jul 31, 2007 @ 2:17am |
Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Masa replied on Tue Jul 31, 2007 @ 2:20am |
Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» flo replied on Tue Jul 31, 2007 @ 2:53am |
ça l'air qu'y avait des bons produits à eclipse :) | |
I'm feeling phd powa !!! right now.. |
Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» ApR1zM replied on Tue Jul 31, 2007 @ 6:27am |
plus ou moins techniquement ya raison 11 en binaire = 3 donc c pas faux ! | |
I'm feeling bout des 500 cibles right now.. |
Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Daf replied on Tue Jul 31, 2007 @ 7:12am |
ou ça peut être tout simplement une façon de voir les choses. pourquoi devons nous nous plier au fait que 1+1=2. Chez moi, comme dirait Thom Yorke, ça restera toujours 2+2=5. Voir et faire les choses comme je les souhaites et non comme il est écrit dans les livres simplement parce que c'est écris. Si je ne trouve pas ça logique (à pars en mathématique, on parle bien ici en métaphore) alors pour devrais-je l'appliquer? hehe Anyway, c'est ma façon de le voir..
To put the world to rights? I'll stay home forever Where two & two always makes up five I'll lay down the tracks Sandbag & hide January has April's showers And two & two always makes up five [...] 2+2=5 - Radiohead | |
I'm feeling kiss me, im shitface right now.. |
Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Screwhead replied on Tue Jul 31, 2007 @ 7:17am |
Actually, you're wrong on that.
The proof starts from the Peano Postulates, which define the natural
numbers N. N is the smallest set satisfying these postulates: P1. 1 is in N. P2. If x is in N, then its "successor" x' is in N. P3. There is no x such that x' = 1. P4. If x isn't 1, then there is a y in N such that y' = x. P5. If S is a subset of N, 1 is in S, and the implication (x in S => x' in S) holds, then S = N. Then you have to define addition recursively: Def: Let a and b be in N. If b = 1, then define a + b = a' (using P1 and P2). If b isn't 1, then let c' = b, with c in N (using P4), and define a + b = (a + c)'. Then you have to define 2: Def: 2 = 1' 2 is in N by P1, P2, and the definition of 2. Theorem: 1 + 1 = 2 Proof: Use the first part of the definition of + with a = b = 1. Then 1 + 1 = 1' = 2 Q.E.D. Note: There is an alternate formulation of the Peano Postulates which replaces 1 with 0 in P1, P3, P4, and P5. Then you have to change the definition of addition to this: Def: Let a and b be in N. If b = 0, then define a + b = a. If b isn't 0, then let c' = b, with c in N, and define a + b = (a + c)'. You also have to define 1 = 0', and 2 = 1'. Then the proof of the Theorem above is a little different: Proof: Use the second part of the definition of + first: 1 + 1 = (1 + 0)' Now use the first part of the definition of + on the sum in parentheses: 1 + 1 = (1)' = 1' = 2 Q.E.D. | |
I'm feeling warcracktastic right now.. |
Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» moondancer replied on Tue Jul 31, 2007 @ 8:26am |
Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» JojoBizarre replied on Tue Jul 31, 2007 @ 8:45am |
Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» KeyMiNDer replied on Tue Jul 31, 2007 @ 8:56am |
Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» DCRn replied on Tue Jul 31, 2007 @ 9:24am |
Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» JojoBizarre replied on Tue Jul 31, 2007 @ 9:26am |
Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Nuclear replied on Tue Jul 31, 2007 @ 10:03am |
Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Mico replied on Tue Jul 31, 2007 @ 1:28pm |
Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» PaLy replied on Tue Jul 31, 2007 @ 10:59pm |
1 + 1 = 3 cest dans le livre "les fourmis"
sinon 2 + 2 = 5 c'est dans le livre "1984" des théories révolutionaires assez intéressantes mais j'apprécierais + de détails.. les livres en fournissent trop peu | |
I'm feeling drunk again right now.. |
Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» rawali replied on Tue Jul 31, 2007 @ 11:00pm |
Considerant qu'on parle quand meme d'un album qui s'appel hail to the theif et que c'est assez difficile de ne pas penser au bon vieux 1984 d'Orwell... j'avais donc analyse la piece de facon totalement differente... Pour moi j'avais vu le texte comme etant dit a la premiere personne par le personnage principal du roman dans sa facon de penser au tout debut du recit. C'est-a-dire qu'il tente de s'integrer dans la societe et de s'y cacher malgre ses penses qui sont, sans qu'il le sache, revolutionnaires.
"Are you such a dreamer? To put the world to rights? I'll stay home forever Where two & two always makes up five" interpretation: Es-tu tellement un reveur que tu voudrais changer les choses, moi je preffere rester dans le confort psychologique de croire a 2+2=5 sans poser de questions. (ou 2+2=5 symbolise ici la pense du parti peu importe si c'est la realite ou non "In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable—what then?" Originally Posted By Daf ou ça peut être tout simplement une façon de voir les choses. pourquoi devons nous nous plier au fait que 1+1=2. Chez moi, comme dirait Thom Yorke, ça restera toujours 2+2=5. Voir et faire les choses comme je les souhaites et non comme il est écrit dans les livres simplement parce que c'est écris. Si je ne trouve pas ça logique (à pars en mathématique, on parle bien ici en métaphore) alors pour devrais-je l'appliquer? hehe Anyway, c'est ma façon de le voir.. To put the world to rights? I'll stay home forever Where two & two always makes up five I'll lay down the tracks Sandbag & hide January has April's showers And two & two always makes up five [...] 2+2=5 - Radiohead | |
I'm feeling like a killer robot right now.. |
Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» DCRn replied on Wed Aug 1, 2007 @ 8:20am |
To be fair, Orwell took it from Stalin's political slogan... Update » DCRn wrote on Wed Aug 1, 2007 @ 8:21am Also, Victor Hugo.
Victor Hugo said "Now, get seven million five hundred thousand votes to declare that two and two make five, that the straight line is the longest road, that the whole is less than its part; get it declared by eight millions, by ten millions, by a hundred millions of votes, you will not have advanced a step." QUOTE WARS! | |
I'm feeling toastmelba right now.. |
Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» rawali replied on Wed Aug 1, 2007 @ 7:01pm |
W:r:1
Page: 1 |
[ Top Of Page ] |
Post A Reply |
You must be logged in to post a reply.
[ Top Of Page ] |