Guest
home
beatmaps
rankings
community
store
help
forum
  1. Forums
  2. Other
  3. Off-Topic

If 2+2=5 and 1+1=11 what's 2+1?

posted
Total Posts
55
show more
Railey2
512 posts
Joined February 2015
Railey2
ok, to make this clear,

this is our normal decimal system

this is OP's system



If 2+2=5 and 1+1=11 what's 2+1

"2+2=5" and "1+1=11" is absolutely not our normal decimal system, because
2+2≠5 and 1+1≠11
thats why I use the different color.




what you suggest, is
2^2 is 5, 2=5^(1/2), which is 2.23606798 ... and so on.
This is not possible, its a mixup.


silmarilen wrote:

yeah true, i was thinking too much so i missed that obvious part :P
I feel your pain. This is why I will never be a good chess player, lol.
-sev
875 posts
Joined February 2014
-sev
♂
EneT
1,022 posts
Joined August 2014
EneT
Wtf is this shit?!!
Railey2
512 posts
Joined February 2015
Railey2
@silmarilen, I thought of a better riddle, try to solve this:

4+4 = 7
4^4 = 7
4/4 = 3
3*3 = 3
3/3 = 3
3+3 = ?
EneT
1,022 posts
Joined August 2014
EneT

Railey2 wrote:

4+4 = 7
4^4 = 7
4/4 = 3
3*3 = 3
3/3 = 3
3+3 = ?
x = 4
y = 3
x+x = x^x = 7
x/x = y*y = y/y = 3
y+y = ?

y*y = y/y this logic suggests that * and / are one and the same operation
x+x = x^x also suggests that + and ^ are the same operations

x^x = 7, 7^0.25 = 1.6265765617
so x = 1.6265765617
the only way for 1.6265765617 to become 7 is 1.6265765617^4 and considering x+x = x^x the real identity of + is ^.

Now I'm gonna go by the ruling that when + or ^ is used the second operand becomes seperate from the value of x or y cus' fuck it.
e.g. the real expression for 4+4 = 7 is x^4 = 7 but for x/x = 3 it is still x/x.
Now:
x/x = y*y = y/y = 3
1.6265765617*1.6265765617 = 2.6457513111 but we can just round that to 3.
so / is actually *.
y*y = 3 is the same as y^2 = 3
3^0.5 = 1.7320508076
y = 1.7320508076
y+y = y^3
y^3 = 1.7320508076^3 = 5.1961524227
Since I appear to have made it a rule previously that all answers must be rounded to integers the answer must therefore be 5.
TLDR 3+3 = 5
silmarilen
5,579 posts
Joined February 2010
silmarilen

Railey2 wrote:

@silmarilen, I thought of a better riddle, try to solve this:

4+4 = 7
4^4 = 7
4/4 = 3
3*3 = 3
3/3 = 3
3+3 = ?
3+3=4
Railey2
512 posts
Joined February 2015
Railey2
congratz silmarilen

EneT, far off.
EneT
1,022 posts
Joined August 2014
EneT
Fuck sake.
silmarilen
5,579 posts
Joined February 2010
silmarilen
explanation:
3, 4 and 7 are actually numbers written in a different way. forget their actual meaning as you know it
now, +, ^. * and / still have their original meaning
so now look at it
4+4 and 4^4 have the same answer, that only happens with 2, so 4=2
3*3=3, 3/3=3 this only happens with 1, so 3=1
now 3+3 is actually 1+1, which is 2. and in our new system 4=2 so 1+1=2 becomes 3+3=4
Railey2
512 posts
Joined February 2015
Railey2
I just included the operations with / to exclude 0
silmarilen
5,579 posts
Joined February 2010
silmarilen
yeah i realised after i made the post that 3/3=3 wasnt necessary to know the answer but i hadnt thought about them being there to rule out 0 yet.
Railey2
512 posts
Joined February 2015
Railey2
theoretically, you could still find a different solution by treating the operators as the part that changed, but that sort of fails Occam's Razor. Or you just redefine everything and create something crazy.

But yes, the way you solved it was the way it was meant to be solved.
silmarilen
5,579 posts
Joined February 2010
silmarilen
occam's razor is love, occam's razor is life.
Railey2
512 posts
Joined February 2015
Railey2
now that I think of it, the lazy way would be to redefine + as "equal to ^, yielding 7 as a result when used between 2 arbitrary numbers"


then define / as always yielding 3, and * as equal to /


the result of 3+3 is 7.

But thats kinda cheating, is it not?


or you just define ? as always being an orange cube. The only challenge would be not creating a contradiction.
Bweh
486 posts
Joined September 2012
Bweh

Aurani wrote:

Brian OA wrote:

8
Did you seriously take this seriously?
This is fun, why not
EneT
1,022 posts
Joined August 2014
EneT

Brian OA wrote:

Aurani wrote:

Did you seriously take this seriously?
This is fun, why not
I was expecting you to reply "Did you literally take me literally?"
AutoMedic
1,166 posts
Joined April 2014
AutoMedic
Meth is boring
Trash Boat
4,403 posts
Joined April 2013
Trash Boat

AutoMedic wrote:

Meth is boring
I miss mathexpert

Inb4 incoming iPPe "i miss stranger" post
Lewder
654 posts
Joined October 2012
Lewder
i miss being drunk
HazeL
175 posts
Joined July 2013
HazeL
2+2=5 (maybe 2=2.5)
1+1=11(maybe 1=5.5) <i just divide them to 2

answer: 2.5 (2) + 5.5 (1)= 8
chaee
chaee

HazeL wrote:

2+2=5 (maybe 2=2.5)
1+1=11(maybe 1=5.5) <i just divide them to 2

answer: 2.5 (2) + 5.5 (1)= 8
I agree!
Railey2
512 posts
Joined February 2015
Railey2
again mixing 2 systems. Not how it works. You assume that the numbers on the left side are encoded while the one on the right side of the equation are not.
HazeL
175 posts
Joined July 2013
HazeL

Railey2 wrote:

again mixing 2 systems. Not how it works. You assume that the numbers on the left side are encoded while the one on the right side of the equation are not.
show your answer then
Railey2
512 posts
Joined February 2015
Railey2
but I already did. It's not solvable unless you mix 2 systems, which is not how its done. We miss the link between 2 and 1, in every case.

The 3 equations can be translated to

a + a = b
x + x = y
a + x = ?

theres no way. All your solutions rely on conveniently mixing systems up in one way or another, instead of actually attempting to solve for the variables within the given system.
Last edited by Railey2 , edited 1 time in total.
chaee
chaee
Okay cool.
HazeL
175 posts
Joined July 2013
HazeL

Railey2 wrote:

but I already did. It's not solvable unless you mix 2 systems, which is not how its done. We miss the link between 2 and 1, in every case.

The 2 equations can be translated to

a + a = b
x + x = y
a + x = ?

theres no way. All your solutions rely on conveniently mixing systems up in one way or another, instead of actually attempting to solve for the variables within the given system.
oh sorry i didnt see your post and thanks chaee for agreeing :D
Dusalty
324 posts
Joined May 2011
Dusalty
2+1=((1*5+1*5-2*11)/11)+1
HazeL
175 posts
Joined July 2013
HazeL
o_o
Sanxu_old
62 posts
Joined November 2014
Sanxu_old
Numbers are just a social construct created to keep us down.
HazeL
175 posts
Joined July 2013
HazeL
im just telling the possibilities
assuming that 2 is value # and 1 as $
BleuVitriol
12 posts
Joined May 2015
BleuVitriol
42
Vialle
Vialle
Asians shouldn't be in this thread
Flaus
36 posts
Joined July 2012
Flaus
the autism is intensifying
fat pear
264 posts
Joined July 2014
fat pear
21 you're stupid
ahahahfahhg ah AH Hafu awheeljaw/hgwguoh23qwrudj mawegfuioawefuoaweh bgerafjuowehg8awifuow3 uf8a9f3jo niua3ngoauw4nfuinwi4uognuioaw4ncionwioeuniawg.
Trash Boat
4,403 posts
Joined April 2013
Trash Boat

[ microism ] wrote:

21 you're stupid
ahahahfahhg ah AH Hafu awheeljaw/hgwguoh23qwrudj mawegfuioawefuoaweh bgerafjuowehg8awifuow3 uf8a9f3jo niua3ngoauw4nfuinwi4uognuioaw4ncionwioeuniawg.
***SHITPOSTER DETECTED***
***RESTRICTION 666 RELEASED***
***DIMENSIONAL INTERFERENCE FIELD DEPLOYED INSIDE OF IMAGINARY NUMBER***
***EXTERMINATION PROTOCOL: ENGAGED***
fat pear
264 posts
Joined July 2014
fat pear

Trash Boat wrote:

[ microism ] wrote:

21 you're stupid
ahahahfahhg ah AH Hafu awheeljaw/hgwguoh23qwrudj mawegfuioawefuoaweh bgerafjuowehg8awifuow3 uf8a9f3jo niua3ngoauw4nfuinwi4uognuioaw4ncionwioeuniawg.
***SHITPOSTER DETECTED***
***RESTRICTION 666 RELEASED***
***DIMENSIONAL INTERFERENCE FIELD DEPLOYED INSIDE OF IMAGINARY NUMBER***
***EXTERMINATION PROTOCOL: ENGAGED***
You shouldn't be talking.
Trash Boat
4,403 posts
Joined April 2013
Trash Boat
You shouldn't exist
fat pear
264 posts
Joined July 2014
fat pear

Trash Boat wrote:

You shouldn't exist
Oh. Okay.
sneeze
2 posts
Joined December 2014
sneeze
69



























69+420=1337 you pleb
Please sign in to reply.

New reply

0
17 / 55