I was under the impression that it wasn't possible to prove 2+2=4
_everywhere in the universe_

I was referred to a proof of 2+2=4 on the web but the maths is way beyond my
abilities so I conceeded the point. Was I right or wrong?

In article <4699e296$1$1593$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>,
 "CWatters"  wrote:

> I was under the impression that it wasn't possible to prove 2+2=4
> _everywhere in the universe_

(1) The proof of "2+2=4" has nothing whatsoever to do with the physical 
universe, and everything to do with the usual DEFINITIONS of 2, 4, +, 
and =.

(2) It presumably isn't possible to prove anything at all while being 
ripped apart by the tidal forces near the centre of a black hole, so it 
wouldn't be possible to prove 2+2=4 there.


> I was referred to a proof of 2+2=4 on the web but the maths is way beyond my
> abilities 

That's odd, since the proof from the Peano axioms is just a few simple 
lines.  Maybe you're referring to the Metamath proof of 2+2=4 using ZFC 
set theory (which requires a lot of preliminary machinery).

> so I conceeded the point. Was I right or wrong?

Yes.  :-)

-- 
---------------------------
|  BBB                b    \     Barbara at LivingHistory stop co stop uk
|  B  B   aa     rrr  b     |
|  BBB   a  a   r     bbb   |    Quidquid latine dictum sit,
|  B  B  a  a   r     b  b  |    altum viditur.
|  BBB    aa a  r     bbb   |   
-----------------------------

In article <4699e296$1$1593$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>,
 "CWatters"  wrote:

> I was under the impression that it wasn't possible to prove 2+2=4
> _everywhere in the universe_

(1) The proof of "2+2=4" has nothing whatsoever to do with the physical 
universe, and everything to do with the usual DEFINITIONS of 2, 4, +, 
and =.

(2) It presumably isn't possible to prove anything at all while being 
ripped apart by the tidal forces near the centre of a black hole, so it 
wouldn't be possible to prove 2+2=4 there.


> I was referred to a proof of 2+2=4 on the web but the maths is way beyond my
> abilities 

That's odd, since the proof from the Peano axioms is just a few simple 
lines.  Maybe you're referring to the Metamath proof of 2+2=4 using ZFC 
set theory (which requires a lot of preliminary machinery).

> so I conceeded the point. Was I right or wrong?

Yes.  :-)

-- 
---------------------------
|  BBB                b    \     Barbara at LivingHistory stop co stop uk
|  B  B   aa     rrr  b     |
|  BBB   a  a   r     bbb   |    Quidquid latine dictum sit,
|  B  B  a  a   r     b  b  |    altum viditur.
|  BBB    aa a  r     bbb   |   
-----------------------------

CWatters wrote:
> 
> I was under the impression that it wasn't possible to prove 2+2=4
> _everywhere in the universe_

In as much as a proof is something that human activity produces then
that's true.

-- 
Remove "antispam" and ".invalid" for e-mail address.
"He that giveth to the poor lendeth to the Lord, and shall be repaid," 
said Mrs Fairchild, hastily slipping a shilling into the poor woman's
hand.

In article <4699e296$1$1593$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>,
 "CWatters"  wrote:

> I was under the impression that it wasn't possible to prove 2+2=4
> _everywhere in the universe_

(1) The proof of "2+2=4" has nothing whatsoever to do with the physical 
universe, and everything to do with the usual DEFINITIONS of 2, 4, +, 
and =.

(2) It presumably isn't possible to prove anything at all while being 
ripped apart by the tidal forces near the centre of a black hole, so it 
wouldn't be possible to prove 2+2=4 there.


> I was referred to a proof of 2+2=4 on the web but the maths is way beyond my
> abilities 

That's odd, since the proof from the Peano axioms is just a few simple 
lines.  Maybe you're referring to the Metamath proof of 2+2=4 using ZFC 
set theory (which requires a lot of preliminary machinery).

> so I conceeded the point. Was I right or wrong?

Yes.  :-)

-- 
---------------------------
|  BBB                b    \     Barbara at LivingHistory stop co stop uk
|  B  B   aa     rrr  b     |
|  BBB   a  a   r     bbb   |    Quidquid latine dictum sit,
|  B  B  a  a   r     b  b  |    altum viditur.
|  BBB    aa a  r     bbb   |   
-----------------------------

CWatters wrote:
> 
> I was under the impression that it wasn't possible to prove 2+2=4
> _everywhere in the universe_

In as much as a proof is something that human activity produces then
that's true.

-- 
Remove "antispam" and ".invalid" for e-mail address.
"He that giveth to the poor lendeth to the Lord, and shall be repaid," 
said Mrs Fairchild, hastily slipping a shilling into the poor woman's
hand.

In article <4699e296$1$1593$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>,
 "CWatters"  wrote:

> I was under the impression that it wasn't possible to prove 2+2=4
> _everywhere in the universe_

(1) The proof of "2+2=4" has nothing whatsoever to do with the physical 
universe, and everything to do with the usual DEFINITIONS of 2, 4, +, 
and =.

(2) It presumably isn't possible to prove anything at all while being 
ripped apart by the tidal forces near the centre of a black hole, so it 
wouldn't be possible to prove 2+2=4 there.


> I was referred to a proof of 2+2=4 on the web but the maths is way beyond my
> abilities 

That's odd, since the proof from the Peano axioms is just a few simple 
lines.  Maybe you're referring to the Metamath proof of 2+2=4 using ZFC 
set theory (which requires a lot of preliminary machinery).

> so I conceeded the point. Was I right or wrong?

Yes.  :-)

-- 
---------------------------
|  BBB                b    \     Barbara at LivingHistory stop co stop uk
|  B  B   aa     rrr  b     |
|  BBB   a  a   r     bbb   |    Quidquid latine dictum sit,
|  B  B  a  a   r     b  b  |    altum viditur.
|  BBB    aa a  r     bbb   |   
-----------------------------

CWatters wrote:
> 
> I was under the impression that it wasn't possible to prove 2+2=4
> _everywhere in the universe_

In as much as a proof is something that human activity produces then
that's true.

-- 
Remove "antispam" and ".invalid" for e-mail address.
"He that giveth to the poor lendeth to the Lord, and shall be repaid," 
said Mrs Fairchild, hastily slipping a shilling into the poor woman's
hand.

In article <4699e296$1$1593$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>,
 "CWatters"  wrote:

> I was under the impression that it wasn't possible to prove 2+2=4
> _everywhere in the universe_

(1) The proof of "2+2=4" has nothing whatsoever to do with the physical 
universe, and everything to do with the usual DEFINITIONS of 2, 4, +, 
and =.

(2) It presumably isn't possible to prove anything at all while being 
ripped apart by the tidal forces near the centre of a black hole, so it 
wouldn't be possible to prove 2+2=4 there.


> I was referred to a proof of 2+2=4 on the web but the maths is way beyond my
> abilities 

That's odd, since the proof from the Peano axioms is just a few simple 
lines.  Maybe you're referring to the Metamath proof of 2+2=4 using ZFC 
set theory (which requires a lot of preliminary machinery).

> so I conceeded the point. Was I right or wrong?

Yes.  :-)

-- 
---------------------------
|  BBB                b    \     Barbara at LivingHistory stop co stop uk
|  B  B   aa     rrr  b     |
|  BBB   a  a   r     bbb   |    Quidquid latine dictum sit,
|  B  B  a  a   r     b  b  |    altum viditur.
|  BBB    aa a  r     bbb   |   
-----------------------------

CWatters wrote:
> 
> I was under the impression that it wasn't possible to prove 2+2=4
> _everywhere in the universe_

In as much as a proof is something that human activity produces then
that's true.

-- 
Remove "antispam" and ".invalid" for e-mail address.
"He that giveth to the poor lendeth to the Lord, and shall be repaid," 
said Mrs Fairchild, hastily slipping a shilling into the poor woman's
hand.

In article <4699e296$1$1593$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>,
 "CWatters"  wrote:

> I was under the impression that it wasn't possible to prove 2+2=4
> _everywhere in the universe_

(1) The proof of "2+2=4" has nothing whatsoever to do with the physical 
universe, and everything to do with the usual DEFINITIONS of 2, 4, +, 
and =.

(2) It presumably isn't possible to prove anything at all while being 
ripped apart by the tidal forces near the centre of a black hole, so it 
wouldn't be possible to prove 2+2=4 there.


> I was referred to a proof of 2+2=4 on the web but the maths is way beyond my
> abilities 

That's odd, since the proof from the Peano axioms is just a few simple 
lines.  Maybe you're referring to the Metamath proof of 2+2=4 using ZFC 
set theory (which requires a lot of preliminary machinery).

> so I conceeded the point. Was I right or wrong?

Yes.  :-)

-- 
---------------------------
|  BBB                b    \     Barbara at LivingHistory stop co stop uk
|  B  B   aa     rrr  b     |
|  BBB   a  a   r     bbb   |    Quidquid latine dictum sit,
|  B  B  a  a   r     b  b  |    altum viditur.
|  BBB    aa a  r     bbb   |   
-----------------------------

CWatters wrote:
> 
> I was under the impression that it wasn't possible to prove 2+2=4
> _everywhere in the universe_

In as much as a proof is something that human activity produces then
that's true.

-- 
Remove "antispam" and ".invalid" for e-mail address.
"He that giveth to the poor lendeth to the Lord, and shall be repaid," 
said Mrs Fairchild, hastily slipping a shilling into the poor woman's
hand.

In article <4699e296$1$1593$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>,
 "CWatters"  wrote:

> I was under the impression that it wasn't possible to prove 2+2=4
> _everywhere in the universe_

(1) The proof of "2+2=4" has nothing whatsoever to do with the physical 
universe, and everything to do with the usual DEFINITIONS of 2, 4, +, 
and =.

(2) It presumably isn't possible to prove anything at all while being 
ripped apart by the tidal forces near the centre of a black hole, so it 
wouldn't be possible to prove 2+2=4 there.


> I was referred to a proof of 2+2=4 on the web but the maths is way beyond my
> abilities 

That's odd, since the proof from the Peano axioms is just a few simple 
lines.  Maybe you're referring to the Metamath proof of 2+2=4 using ZFC 
set theory (which requires a lot of preliminary machinery).

> so I conceeded the point. Was I right or wrong?

Yes.  :-)

-- 
---------------------------
|  BBB                b    \     Barbara at LivingHistory stop co stop uk
|  B  B   aa     rrr  b     |
|  BBB   a  a   r     bbb   |    Quidquid latine dictum sit,
|  B  B  a  a   r     b  b  |    altum viditur.
|  BBB    aa a  r     bbb   |   
-----------------------------

CWatters wrote:
> 
> I was under the impression that it wasn't possible to prove 2+2=4
> _everywhere in the universe_

In as much as a proof is something that human activity produces then
that's true.

-- 
Remove "antispam" and ".invalid" for e-mail address.
"He that giveth to the poor lendeth to the Lord, and shall be repaid," 
said Mrs Fairchild, hastily slipping a shilling into the poor woman's
hand.

In article <4699e296$1$1593$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>,
 "CWatters"  wrote:

> I was under the impression that it wasn't possible to prove 2+2=4
> _everywhere in the universe_

(1) The proof of "2+2=4" has nothing whatsoever to do with the physical 
universe, and everything to do with the usual DEFINITIONS of 2, 4, +, 
and =.

(2) It presumably isn't possible to prove anything at all while being 
ripped apart by the tidal forces near the centre of a black hole, so it 
wouldn't be possible to prove 2+2=4 there.


> I was referred to a proof of 2+2=4 on the web but the maths is way beyond my
> abilities 

That's odd, since the proof from the Peano axioms is just a few simple 
lines.  Maybe you're referring to the Metamath proof of 2+2=4 using ZFC 
set theory (which requires a lot of preliminary machinery).

> so I conceeded the point. Was I right or wrong?

Yes.  :-)

-- 
---------------------------
|  BBB                b    \     Barbara at LivingHistory stop co stop uk
|  B  B   aa     rrr  b     |
|  BBB   a  a   r     bbb   |    Quidquid latine dictum sit,
|  B  B  a  a   r     b  b  |    altum viditur.
|  BBB    aa a  r     bbb   |   
-----------------------------

CWatters wrote:
> 
> I was under the impression that it wasn't possible to prove 2+2=4
> _everywhere in the universe_

In as much as a proof is something that human activity produces then
that's true.

-- 
Remove "antispam" and ".invalid" for e-mail address.
"He that giveth to the poor lendeth to the Lord, and shall be repaid," 
said Mrs Fairchild, hastily slipping a shilling into the poor woman's
hand.

In article <4699e296$1$1593$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>,
 "CWatters"  wrote:

> I was under the impression that it wasn't possible to prove 2+2=4
> _everywhere in the universe_

(1) The proof of "2+2=4" has nothing whatsoever to do with the physical 
universe, and everything to do with the usual DEFINITIONS of 2, 4, +, 
and =.

(2) It presumably isn't possible to prove anything at all while being 
ripped apart by the tidal forces near the centre of a black hole, so it 
wouldn't be possible to prove 2+2=4 there.


> I was referred to a proof of 2+2=4 on the web but the maths is way beyond my
> abilities 

That's odd, since the proof from the Peano axioms is just a few simple 
lines.  Maybe you're referring to the Metamath proof of 2+2=4 using ZFC 
set theory (which requires a lot of preliminary machinery).

> so I conceeded the point. Was I right or wrong?

Yes.  :-)

-- 
---------------------------
|  BBB                b    \     Barbara at LivingHistory stop co stop uk
|  B  B   aa     rrr  b     |
|  BBB   a  a   r     bbb   |    Quidquid latine dictum sit,
|  B  B  a  a   r     b  b  |    altum viditur.
|  BBB    aa a  r     bbb   |   
-----------------------------

CWatters wrote:
> 
> I was under the impression that it wasn't possible to prove 2+2=4
> _everywhere in the universe_

In as much as a proof is something that human activity produces then
that's true.

-- 
Remove "antispam" and ".invalid" for e-mail address.
"He that giveth to the poor lendeth to the Lord, and shall be repaid," 
said Mrs Fairchild, hastily slipping a shilling into the poor woman's
hand.

In article <4699e296$1$1593$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>,
 "CWatters"  wrote:

> I was under the impression that it wasn't possible to prove 2+2=4
> _everywhere in the universe_

(1) The proof of "2+2=4" has nothing whatsoever to do with the physical 
universe, and everything to do with the usual DEFINITIONS of 2, 4, +, 
and =.

(2) It presumably isn't possible to prove anything at all while being 
ripped apart by the tidal forces near the centre of a black hole, so it 
wouldn't be possible to prove 2+2=4 there.


> I was referred to a proof of 2+2=4 on the web but the maths is way beyond my
> abilities 

That's odd, since the proof from the Peano axioms is just a few simple 
lines.  Maybe you're referring to the Metamath proof of 2+2=4 using ZFC 
set theory (which requires a lot of preliminary machinery).

> so I conceeded the point. Was I right or wrong?

Yes.  :-)

-- 
---------------------------
|  BBB                b    \     Barbara at LivingHistory stop co stop uk
|  B  B   aa     rrr  b     |
|  BBB   a  a   r     bbb   |    Quidquid latine dictum sit,
|  B  B  a  a   r     b  b  |    altum viditur.
|  BBB    aa a  r     bbb   |   
-----------------------------

CWatters wrote:
> 
> I was under the impression that it wasn't possible to prove 2+2=4
> _everywhere in the universe_

In as much as a proof is something that human activity produces then
that's true.

-- 
Remove "antispam" and ".invalid" for e-mail address.
"He that giveth to the poor lendeth to the Lord, and shall be repaid," 
said Mrs Fairchild, hastily slipping a shilling into the poor woman's
hand.