The Twitter woke-ies have been in a screeching slap fight with James Lindsay because they insist that "2+2=4" is white supremacist western colonialism and that 2+2=5 is correct.
James has been gleefully shining a light on their insanity and the more he exposes the more frantic they're getting. It's hilarious.
I am thinking about going accelerationist on this issue because without math future college degrees are gonna become worthless to employers and anyone who honestly thinks like this is gonna have a hard time retaining power. What do you bros think?
I'm against accelerationism because while it will prove a bigger point to lots of people, people are going to suffer along the way: honest companies would go down with the bad ones, people would get unemployed due to woke graduates' decisions, and so on. I believe this largely because we can clearly see communism not being a good thing thanks in large part to communist countries enforcing police states, having millions die, and so on—the point is proven that communism is bad, but I'd rather want to prevent the tragedy than to allow it to happen and say, "See? I told you so." Alas, it's only easier to see once the damage is done, but still.
Unlike the rioters who want to burn things in the name of a good society, I'd rather see to it that universities like Harvard have reform from the inside. They used to be good, and they could be good again. Call me a Pollyana, but I'd rather hope than to watch the world burn.
I mean, shouldn't math be a post modernists wet dream? It's literally "constructed", axioms and all. A social construct, if you will?
On the other hand, it doesn't matter how often you try, 2+2=4 and no amount of hurt feelings will change that. So, of course she hates it, both as a post modernist and a woman.
Thing is about the 2+2=4 is that is true in the way we defined 2+2 to mean actual addition of same type objects. So in that regard it will always equal 4 and is universal.
Now there is a branch of Algebra that focuses on other ways of defining operations for instance a@b=a+b+1 so @ is now an operation that shares a lot of its characteristics with addition but is not in fact addition as per its initial definition. The example is not an actual thing, I made it up and used @ as a symbol. You can define an infinite amount of operations and solve math problems using non specific operations based on properties.
I assume that a math teacher would use this to say the crap in the article but it is just twisting math to make a political statement as addition using the definition and the initial logical intent of the operation remains universal.
Thinking about it it does fit in to leftist logic, change the definition of things in order to fit a narrative like woman, racism, fascism etc.
Their examples of 2+2 not being 4 shouldn't even be countenanced.
2.49 + 2.48 = 4.97
2.49 rounds down to 2
2.48 rounds down to 2
4.97 rounds up to 5
2 + 2 = 5
It should go without saying that this is not 2+2=5. 2.49 is not 2. 2.48 is not 2. 4.97 is not 5.
The question of 2+2 is just that. It is not a question of 2.49 + 2.48. It is not a question where we are asked to round to nearest integers.
Any 2+2 that equals 5 is simply not 2+2. It is 2+2 in different, predefined context.
Not to mention no one rounds stuff like that. It makes no sense. You either approximate the data going in and then if need be approximate the result again, which can give you horrible results but is useful if you are doing it in hurry or in your mind. Or you round up/down the result itself to make it easier to use.
For some reason this bothers me a lot more then other bullshit coming from deranged SJW minds. I always believed math to be somehow pure.
Apart from one little fact ... they don't get to make the definitions, so how on earth are they supposed to sneak "Stalin did nothing wrong" into mathematics when they don't control the content?
Basically, James Lindsay (of the Grievance Studies hoax) tweeted this and everyone lost their minnds:
2 + 2 = 4: A perspective in white, Western mathematics that marginalizes other possible values.
Being a mathematics professor, he does a good job breaking down why all the ways they get a different answer are either wrong or just relabeling parts of the equation.
Mathematics is not a science. Mathematics is pure, knowable, objective, a priori truths.
First they came for economics. . .
The Twitter woke-ies have been in a screeching slap fight with James Lindsay because they insist that "2+2=4" is white supremacist western colonialism and that 2+2=5 is correct.
James has been gleefully shining a light on their insanity and the more he exposes the more frantic they're getting. It's hilarious.
I am thinking about going accelerationist on this issue because without math future college degrees are gonna become worthless to employers and anyone who honestly thinks like this is gonna have a hard time retaining power. What do you bros think?
I'm against accelerationism because while it will prove a bigger point to lots of people, people are going to suffer along the way: honest companies would go down with the bad ones, people would get unemployed due to woke graduates' decisions, and so on. I believe this largely because we can clearly see communism not being a good thing thanks in large part to communist countries enforcing police states, having millions die, and so on—the point is proven that communism is bad, but I'd rather want to prevent the tragedy than to allow it to happen and say, "See? I told you so." Alas, it's only easier to see once the damage is done, but still.
Unlike the rioters who want to burn things in the name of a good society, I'd rather see to it that universities like Harvard have reform from the inside. They used to be good, and they could be good again. Call me a Pollyana, but I'd rather hope than to watch the world burn.
Common Conservatism: We're on fire, douse it with water. (Proven inffective)
ACCELERATIONISM: DOUSE IT WITH GASOLINE. R I S E F R O M T H E A S H E S.
Objectivism: prepare a nice comfortable seat at safe distance and watch it burn while munching popcorn.
I mean, shouldn't math be a post modernists wet dream? It's literally "constructed", axioms and all. A social construct, if you will?
On the other hand, it doesn't matter how often you try, 2+2=4 and no amount of hurt feelings will change that. So, of course she hates it, both as a post modernist and a woman.
Thing is about the 2+2=4 is that is true in the way we defined 2+2 to mean actual addition of same type objects. So in that regard it will always equal 4 and is universal. Now there is a branch of Algebra that focuses on other ways of defining operations for instance a@b=a+b+1 so @ is now an operation that shares a lot of its characteristics with addition but is not in fact addition as per its initial definition. The example is not an actual thing, I made it up and used @ as a symbol. You can define an infinite amount of operations and solve math problems using non specific operations based on properties.
I assume that a math teacher would use this to say the crap in the article but it is just twisting math to make a political statement as addition using the definition and the initial logical intent of the operation remains universal. Thinking about it it does fit in to leftist logic, change the definition of things in order to fit a narrative like woman, racism, fascism etc.
Their examples of 2+2 not being 4 shouldn't even be countenanced.
It should go without saying that this is not 2+2=5. 2.49 is not 2. 2.48 is not 2. 4.97 is not 5. The question of 2+2 is just that. It is not a question of 2.49 + 2.48. It is not a question where we are asked to round to nearest integers.
Any 2+2 that equals 5 is simply not 2+2. It is 2+2 in different, predefined context.
Not to mention no one rounds stuff like that. It makes no sense. You either approximate the data going in and then if need be approximate the result again, which can give you horrible results but is useful if you are doing it in hurry or in your mind. Or you round up/down the result itself to make it easier to use. For some reason this bothers me a lot more then other bullshit coming from deranged SJW minds. I always believed math to be somehow pure.
Apart from one little fact ... they don't get to make the definitions, so how on earth are they supposed to sneak "Stalin did nothing wrong" into mathematics when they don't control the content?
For those wondering about the context, you can read about it here:
https://newdiscourses.com/2020/08/2-plus-2-never-equals-5/
Basically, James Lindsay (of the Grievance Studies hoax) tweeted this and everyone lost their minnds:
2 + 2 = 4: A perspective in white, Western mathematics that marginalizes other possible values.
Being a mathematics professor, he does a good job breaking down why all the ways they get a different answer are either wrong or just relabeling parts of the equation.
If I was an actual white supremacist this would be a tactic. Convince blacks and other non whites thatt math is racist and something to be ignored