Define 2 + 2

define number
define zero
define a
define successor
define equal
define induction
define "contains"
define successor

To all those watching at home, check the archive for the deleted scenes.

What is the solution to postmodernism? I resurrection of the Logos, Cheerio.

What is "define"?

Multiplication of multiplication. This is unprovable, but for quantam mechanics. But please, crouton in my belly, do you even understand quantum mechanics?

Consult psychology for this one, Co-Co Pops mister.

Bump

Thread theme: youtu.be/zOt6ppIBOd4

What is the "joke" of Kabbalah? I'll give this one quick: its you you fat fuck. Too many mayo mustard salads fattu?

What is the Holy Spirit? How does this compare in every religion? Better get here quick Crouton dejeur.

Getting impatient Sir Salad.

The death of The Beast is laughter. Hurry up Crowley.

Duuurrrrr is it heaven?

Nope. It's the Shakespeare of God.

Get in here, Holy unbanned ones.

Came here to post this.

You indicated it, but you didn't define it.

Number = an abstraction that represents a quantity.
Zero = the number that describes a lack of quantity.
"a" was already defined, he said "a is a natural number." Arbitrariness is implied in this description, so "a" can be substituted for any natural number.
Successor = the next natural number on the number line.
Equal (in the context of numbers) = representing the same quantity.
Induction = a process of proof where, once a "base case" is established, the theorem follows for all cases after the base case.
Contains = set membership.

Theorem (informal): Derrida's game is unwinnable*.

>Let's construct an object called a definition-tree. A definition-tree has a "root," which is a single node containing one or more words, and can be filled out by two players, a deconstructionist and an analytic.
>The deconstructionist can add any number of empty children to any leaf node in the tree, up to the number of words in that leaf node. Each of these new empty child nodes must correspond to a unique word in their parent.
>The analytic can fill an empty node either with (1) a reference to a node in a higher level, or (2) a unique definition consisting of 1 or more words. If the analytic fills any empty node with (1), the reference must be to a node which in turn asks the definition of the same word, or is a synonym of that word (otherwise, he'd be assigning an untrue definition). A node cannot refer to itself, or any other node with identical contents.
>The creation of an empty node is analogous to asking "What is this word's definition?" The filling of a node is analogous to stating "That is the definition."
>If the analytic cannot fill an empty node at any level, he loses. Moreover, the standard laws of philosophy apply — if filling an empty node causes the analytic to self-contradict, he loses. The analytic wins when and only when he has produced a logically-consistent definition-tree such that the deconstructionist can only create empty nodes which can be filled with (1) (i.e. every word in the tree has been defined rigorously).

Theorem (formal): Given optimal play by the deconstructionist, the analytic cannot construct a winning definition-tree.

Heuristic: The tree grows exponentially, because it has a nonzero branching factor at most nodes, with the exception of nodes that are filled with (1). Nodes that are filled with (1) are much rarer than those filled with (2), and those filled with (2) will tend to contain multiple words, rather than one. Assuming some finite threshold of empty nodes, F, past which the analytic will lose his sanity, it is extremely likely that the tree will eventually have a level wherein the number of nodes is >= F.

Proof (or counterexample): Working on it.

*I like playing anyway, because it tests the robustness of my understanding.

define abstraction
define represent
define quantity
define lack
define arbitrariness
define implied
define description
define substitute
define natural
define context
define same
define process
define base case
define theorem
define established
define membership

4
this is what STEMtards call "objective truth"

Define 4

THE GREATEST OF ALL TIME

Define time you tasteless cookie

Motion

Be brave my chosen ones! Satan watches over you proudly. You fat pig, what is the heart of metaphysics?

Maths is the only (ONLY) divine union between God and Satan. Such is Kabbalah.

Apologies for the confusion. Check these dubs and namefagging.

The possibilities of virtue

durrrrrrrrr

I love your brainlets man. Every one of them makes me laugh

2+2 :)

Got it! Not the reverse... but I know you understand.

Pass the message on: i.imgur.com/bQPUhqF.jpg

We have that 2 = {1 | }, as expressed in its natural form, and we've already defined addition between two numbers as
x + y = {x^L + y, x + y^L | x^R + y, x + y^R}
for all x^L, x^R, y^L, y^R.
It follows directly that 2 + 2 = {2 + 1, 1 + 2|} = {3|}, as we already proved the commutativity of addition. We call this number 4, as expected, since the natural numbers as we have defined them in Conway's construction match up to von Neumann's finite ordinals, that is that 0 = O, 1 = {0}, 2 = {0, 1}, ..., since we know from the extention theorem that 4 = {3|} = {1, 2, 3|}.

further reading
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surreal_number
Conway's ONAG
Jech's Set Theory

i'm going to bed

m8 go read a book

gonna define my dick in your ass, if you continue