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?
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?