"2+2=5 for large values of 2" Huh?

[TriPolar]

It’s common to include another part: 2+2=5 for large values of 2, and small values of 5

[robert_columbia]

@SuaSponte

When someone posts “2+2=4” to make some point, inevitably some wiseass comes back with, “well, 2+2=5 for large values of 2.”…

Only for small values of 5.

[Chronos]

Yeah, the joke about 2+2=5 did not originate with Orwell, since when Orwell said it, it wasn’t a joke.

[CookingWithGas]

In addition, clocks strike 13 for very large values of 12.

@Snoops27

I’m sorry to say that your inept attempt to sound well-read has simply succeeded in making you look rather silly.

I’m sorry to say that your inability to recognize satire has succeeded in a creating a great “whooshing” sound.

[Learjeff]

Of course, it’s a joke, but it’s even funnier because there is an interpretation where it’s true. I don’t see any contradiction here.

You guys sure can pick a nit!

I’m going to pick an even smaller nit, though. Dex says that all measurements are approximations. I disagree. The number of letters in this sentence is 34. That’s a measurement, but it’s not an approximation.

Gee, I feel better.

[md2000]

@Francis_Vaughan

Actually I think the first version I heard required “sufficiently large values of”, and didn’t involve 2 and 5, …

the technical term, when I took these math classes in mid-1970’s was the “for sufficiently large values of..”

I suspect the joke got changed to “for extremely large values of…” because the use of “sufficiently…” is a technical term within math; so this is sort of a private joke in the math crowd. When telling it to people who don’t appreciate the subtlety of the wording, who aren’t math types, “extremely large” makes the joke more understandable.

[74westy]

@md2000

the technical term, when I took these math classes in mid-1970’s was the “for sufficiently large values of..”

I suspect the joke got changed to “for extremely large values of…” because the use of “sufficiently…” is a technical term within math; so this is sort of a private joke in the math crowd. When telling it to people who don’t appreciate the subtlety of the wording, who aren’t math types, “extremely large” makes the joke more understandable.

Indeed. And then non-mathematicians heard laughter and instead of admitting that they didn’t get the joke, they made up the nonsense about measurement and rounding.

[CookingWithGas]

@Learjeff

I’m going to pick an even smaller nit, though. Dex says that all measurements are approximations. I disagree. The number of letters in this sentence is 34. That’s a measurement, but it’s not an approximation.

Well, as long as we’re going to pick nits, counting is not the same thing as measuring.

[dtilque]

@Learjeff

You guys sure can pick a nit!

I’m going to pick an even smaller nit, …

Welcome to the SDMB.

It’s been a long time since I read the book, but I thought the expression was 1+1=3 in 1984. Perhaps I’m misremembering (memory is the second thing to go as you get older, ya know).

[CookingWithGas]

@dtilque

It’s been a long time since I read the book, but I thought the expression was 1+1=3 in 1984. Perhaps I’m misremembering (memory is the second thing to go as you get older, ya know).

Maybe you’re thinking of the Beatles “1 and 1 and 1 is 3”.

I’ve never read it but I have it on my shelf so I looked it up and it’s 2+2=5. The context or intended meaning is beyond me.

[Ethilrist]

@Chronos

Thank you, Reality Chuck! That means that there are at least two people in the world who interpret the joke that way. I’m not alone any more.

Perhaps more than two, if you use… well.

[Blue_Blistering_Barnacle]

@CookingWithGas

Maybe you’re thinking of the Beatles “1 and 1 and 1 is 3”.

I’ve never read it but I have it on my shelf so I looked it up and it’s 2+2=5. The context or intended meaning is beyond me.

Leaving the joke and moving to the very unfunny:

In 1984 the protagonist, Winston, undergoes extensive physical and mental torture in what is essentially a (sadistic) political re-education process. In attempting to cling to some intellectual bedrock, he insists that 2 +2 =4. His torturer is able to demonstrate that by application of sufficient force and pain that he can convince him otherwise. (This was the penultimate step in totally breaking down Winston’s personality; the ultimate step is truly awful.)

I am not a conspiracy nut, and I do not believe that government is inherently evil. But I do think everyone should read 1984 (and re-read it every 5-10 years). (Maybe they should make a law… ).

Getting back to the joke, I think a *small *part of the humor reaction may (for many people familiar with 1984) come from a defense reaction to the juxtaposition of a silly joke and that events described in the story.

[Blue_Blistering_Barnacle]

Or not.

[md2000]

As an example of nerd humour - rerun of Big Bang Theory the other night…

A farmer has quite a few chickens, but they aren’t laying eggs. So he asks a theoretical physicist for help. The physicist studies the situation and says to the farmer - “I have a solution to your problem, but it only works for spherical chickens in a vaccuum.” (Everyone laughs hysterically, except Penny who looks puzzled)

These sort of technical jokes make perfect sense, need no explanation to anyone who has some learning in that field, may be strange to outsiders who miss the point.

[Freakenstein]

@Colibri

Another frequent formulation of the concept is “2 does not equal 3, even for very large values of 2.”

I knew it, I KNEW IT! 0.9999999… is not 1!!!

[Leo_Bloom]

@Leo_Bloom

Just want to throw in here that “original intention” is a deeply problematic concept, and has received hefty intellectual debate in literature and musicological circles, both as to its normative sense, such as can be reconstructed, and to its revised sense, that such reconstructions are a) impossible to grasp, given the “receding horizon” of an individual author’s --or, indeed, his common–cultural experience; and b) that given this situation, the sense of “original intent” of the creator can be placed in the shadow of the interpreter’s apprehension–the manifesto of the Deconstructionist explosion in the 1980s in literature critical studies.

So, all bets are off.

Way to kill a joke, Leo.

@Trinopus

Oh, I dunno. I’m laughing!

(Sure, parodying deconstructionist cant is shooting fish in a barrel, but you did it with panache!)

(Say, has anyone ever actually shot fish in a barrel?)

@Snoops27

I don’t know why you are making such a great effort to sound intelligent/educated ( I can find that quote too,you know!!). The ORIGINAL 2+2=5 was written by George Orwell in his book “1984”. The world famous quantum physicist, Lawrence Krauss added, as a humerous addendum, “for extremely large values of 2”. BTW, I asked Professor Krauss about it at a book signing in London a couple of years ago. I’m sorry to say that your inept attempt to sound well-read has simply succeeded in making you look rather silly.

I retrieve this somewhat gamy thread from the larder to reply for something that’s bugged since I posted, off and on when I think of it:

My post is not cant, nor is it a parody. It does have big words, I’ll grant Snoops that.

[Colibri]

@Leo_Bloom

I retrieve this somewhat gamy thread from the larder to reply for something that’s bugged since I posted, off and on when I think of it:

My post is not cant, nor is it a parody. It does have big words, I’ll grant Snoops that.

Moderator Note

Leo Bloom, stop pointlessly resurrecting old threads in GQ, as you also did with the “.999 = 1.” I’ve issued you a number of moderator notes recently for inappropriate comments in GQ. While I’m not issuing you a warning now, if you don’t put a little more thought in your posts here I may start doing so.

This is closed.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator