# can i prove 2 + 2 = 5 mathematiically?

### 45 Answers

- 1 decade agoFavorite Answer
Knowing what a proof is, is the first step in answering this question. From what I am familiar with...

A proof is: a set of logical steps acquired through deductive (therefore, not making any giant leaps in logic, unless by definition), and hence, empirically (from the evidence provided) resulting in a direct equivalence (being, among other types of equivalence, but primarily, in permutation, multiplicative/additively & negatively/positively & even/odd... meta-mathematically) of states, that's shortest distance is (in absolute terms), either infinity, zero, and/or, also, one.

Really, the attempted 'proof' of 2 + 2 = 5 is based on a distorted type of Trigonometry, which was in essence the source of today's Calculus (just try to draw Tangent or Secant without running into the idea of Calculus' derivative & integral, respectively), and actually is the result of any additive equavalence of any two numbers' to being alike to any number, (because measuring hypotenuse of a given sides is essentially multiplicative, hence partially irrational).

(Which makes me wonder... is there a 2 * 2 = 5 equivalent? and the answer is a resounding, yes! But first the 'proof' as written by Charles Seife.)

Let a & b each be equal to 1. Since a ^ b are equal,

b^2 = ab ...(eq.1)

Since a equals itself, it is obvious that

a^2 = a^2 ...(eq.2)

Subtract equation 1 from equation 2. This yeilds

(a^2) - (b^2) = (a^2)-ab ...(eq. 3)

We can factor both sides of the equation; (a^2)-ab equals a(a-b). Likewise, (a^2)-(b^2) equals (a + b)(a - b) (Nothing fishy is going on here. Ths statement is perfectly true. Plug in numbers and see for yourself!) Substituting into the equation 3 , we get

(a+b)(a-b) = a (a-b) ...(eq.5)

So far, so good. Now divide both sides of the equation by (a-b) and we get

a + b = a ...(eq.5)

b = 0 ...(eq.6)

But we set b to 1 at the very beginning of this proof, so this means that

1 = 0 ...(eq.7)

...Anyways, getting that far gives us the jist of the proof, later in the proof, Charles Seife goes on to prove that Winston Churchill was a carrot! if you want to know how that is possible, I recommend you read the book.

From equation 7, add a number to either side and get it equal to any other number, one greater than itself.

Multiplying equation 7 after adding to it, and one can get: any number is equal to any other number.

Hence, conceptually, any number is equal to zero, and, theoretically, that includes infinity. But that's also the reason why when you divide by zero, it is 'Undefined.' Which, consequentially, is what is happening in this equation... just subsistute 1 into equation 3 and one will see that we are dividing by zero in equation 5.

This is what lead to the invention of calculus. Really, from here this segways into Hilbert Space... but that is best left for another entry, hopefully, on the actual subject of quantazation.

That's all I have time for...

THIS PROOF IS BY DEFINITION INCORRECT, but it provides a good tool as of why we define things in mathematics the way we do.

A good question to ask from here would be (based on my previous tangent):

Does 1/3 plus 1/3 plus 1/3 = 1?

Or, does it equal just zero point nine repeating?

Source(s): Zero: Biography of a Dangerous Idea by Charles Seife - 5 years ago
There are a few ways that 2+2 can equal 5. The proff that is mentioned here has a division by zero error in it. However, a legitimate proof would involve the use of infinity (a conceptual math element) Simply put 2+2+INF = 5+INF therefore 2+2=5.

dividing by infinity is not expressly prohibited, however, proofs never use infinity in them like that.

The only legitimate way is using Number Theory.

Number Theory is the basis of our mathematical system Simply put numbers escalate or de-escalate in a set pattern based on spacing in a number line. 1+1=2 1+2=3 etc....

But, the numbers assigned are arbitrary. We use 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 etc.....

You can use another sequence and all of your math will be accurate in that sequence. So if we use 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,10 then in our sequence 2+2=5.

There is also another fuzzy way using exponent of 0. It basically says that (2+2)^0 = 5^0 therefore 2+2=5

any number ^0 =1 so the above is all true.

Using this you can also create something out of nothing. 0^0 = 1.....

Again, it is known that this is not proper math, but it does follow the logic of proof to some extent.

Finally, there is a way using the approaching theory, but I personally do not under stand it. That has the base of :

1/3 = .33333->

2/3 = .66666->

therefore 1 = .99999->

Now, since those two are not truly equal it is said that .99999 -> approaches 1

For math purposes though, we call them equal.

The proof has to do with multiplying on that infinite separation until you get a space of 1, which is what you need to get 2+2 to equal 5.

Hope I confused... er helped. :)

- Login to reply the answers

- Anonymous5 years ago
yes 2+2 then carry the 1=5

- Login to reply the answers

- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- 5 years ago
We know,

20=20 [Same numbers are equal]

=>-20= -20 [Multiplied by( - 1) in both side]

=>16-36=25-45 [Since 16-36=-20 & 25-45=20]

=>16-36+ 81/4=25-45+ 81/4 [Same figure has added in both sides]

=>4^2-2×4×9/2+ (9/2)^2= 5^2-2×5×9/2+ (9/2)^2 [a^2-2ab+b^2 ]

=>(4-9/2)^2= (5-9/2)^2 [a^2-2ab+b^2=(a-b)^2 ]

=>4- 9/2=5- 9/2 [ Using the root]

=>4=5 [Same figure has omitted from both sides]

=>2+2=5 (Proved) (Dr. Prabir Acharjee Nayan)

- ...Show all comments
A square root always givea you positive value not negative which means √(4-9/2)^2 =9/2-4 not 4-9/2 since 4-9/2=-1/2

- Login to reply the answers

- EulercrosserLv 41 decade ago
It depends on the structure of the field/ring/group in which you are working. If working with the standard integers Z, then no, it would be impossible to prove such a thing, but by altering the structure of the ring, you can work in the group Z/Z={0}. In this ring, all integers are equal, and therefore 2+2=4=5.

A common "proof" of showing that two different integers (or numbers) are equal (in the standard ring of integers), usually involves dividing by zero, and therefore is flawed (and thus not a proof).

- Login to reply the answers

- 4 years ago
Yes, you can.if you write 2+2=5, then you can prove it to be mathematically wrong.

- Login to reply the answers

- 4 years ago
Put 2 and 2 nxt to each other. That will equal 22. Then look in the alphabet. V is the 22nd number in the alphabet, and V in roman numerical equals 5

Mind blown

- Login to reply the answers

- 6 years ago
No.The proof in the so called "best answer" is absolutely wrong as you cancelled (a-b) from LHS and RHS.You had alredy taken a=1 and b=1.Common sense tells that 0/0 is undefined, i.e. division by zero is not possible.Therefore the whole thing goes wrong from that step.

Don't try to mess with Mathematics.

- Login to reply the answers

- Anonymous1 decade ago
all proofs are based on known facts and assumptions.

you can indeed "prove" that 2+2=5 if you used flawed assumptions.

however using considerable assumptions it is impossible to prove that 2+2=5

- Login to reply the answers

- 1 decade ago
Yes By changing the base of the number or stating that 4=5.

- Login to reply the answers

1/3+1/3+1/3=3/3=1

1/3+1/3+1/3=0.333...+0.333...+0.333...=0.999...

Let n=0.999...

Therefore,

10n-n=9.999...-0.999...

=>9n=9

=>n=1

Hence 1=0.999...