They probably can`t even spell their own names. Our future looks very bright indeed.Imagine a world that did not use numbers, how much would you pay for a hamburger?

LOL sexiest cause someone is labeled as hot. OK your ugly. Happy now? get off your high horse and get over your self. Don`t wanna be labeled as hot then don`t try to portray yourself as such and then blame "men" for calling you out on it. DUH!

@forestq, do you know what a beauty pageant is? It`s a shallow competition where pretty women are supposed to be in. It`s not like I dismiss any woman that doesn`t fit my taste, it`s because it`s a goddamn beauty pageant...

MeGrendel and Mailbox, really? You took my post seriously? Did you take the video seriously too? "teach the controversy" didn`t clue you in that I was joking? Or is there really a math is not real controversy I`m not aware of?

I thought it was in jest. But wanted to explain that there was, in fact, no controversy.

If we ever meet a totally alien species, our best hope to develop a standard of communication will be the logic of math. From base math (which will probably NOT be base 10), you can expand into the elemental, and also the abstract.

From these simple statements one can ascertain our symbols for the numbers 1,2 & 3, along with our mathematical symbols of addition, equals and does-not equal.

this has fake written all over it and i also feel like showing off my nerd side lol @MeGrendel basic math 1+1 =/= 3 true enough, but i took too many advanced math classes to know that 1+1 can equal anywhere from 1-3 lol if 1 is not a finite 1 but anywhere from .500000....1 to 1.4999....9 where as the number in question is actualy rounded to the ones digit sorry i had to nerd out there lol

I thought our schools stopped teaching math back in the 60`s when social justice, revisionist history, self esteem and environmentalism became the focus of our schools?

Good to know that somewhere, some schools still teach one of the basics!

mandingo3519-"showing off my nerd side lol @MeGrendel"

If you look at my 12:48:53 post, you will notice that I made the same argument that 2+2=5 could be a true statement, for very high values of 2. (math geek here, too).

BUT, in my example, the basic idea is that (o) represents a single object or unit (example: a rock). So you`re only dealing with natural numbers. (a rock plus a rock equals two rocks, but does not equal three rocks)

From natural numbers you could advance to integers. Eventually to rational (fractional) numbers.

Thus the very basic logic can be built on to develop more complicated language.

OutWest-"I thought our schools stopped teaching math back in the 60`s "

Well, they still `present` math, but in order to avoid hurting some idiots self-esteem, the teachers are not allowed to keep grades.

Teacher: "Little Johnnie, what is two plus two." Johnnie: "Uh, seven?" Teacher (old style): "I`m sorry Johnnie, that`s incorrect. Please study more." Teacher (new style): "That`s great, Johnnie! You just got the correct answer to another question."

(and before anyone says `that`s asinine`, please realize that is how some teachers have been instructed to handle incorrect answers).

Any student excelling in math must never be congratulated, as this will make the lazy little students `feel less capable`.

Or as some idiot teacher put it: `You are unique...just like everyone else.` (which is another way of saying, no one is unique)

Wow!! This scares me about who I am going to end up with. My ex gf was a smart girl and there are a lot of dumb ones out there and I hope I don`t end up with a dumb c unt.

- Someone... just kill me now.
eh-hum!.... it`s spelled `scHool`

just sayin....

I found this comment to be extremely sexist and in bad taste. I demand an apology.

Now shut the drat up, and calm down.

Sorry, it does not. Deviding by zero results in undefined (no meaning). So you basically said:

undefined + undefined = undefined.

So your equation means exactly nothing.

BUT, on the other hand, it is entirely possible that `2+2=5` IS a true statement, for very high values of `2`.

Please?

Pretty please?

Haha, dont yiu meen `speling`?

Dummy

I thought it was in jest. But wanted to explain that there was, in fact, no controversy.

If we ever meet a totally alien species, our best hope to develop a standard of communication will be the logic of math. From base math (which will probably NOT be base 10), you can expand into the elemental, and also the abstract.

Take the followin:.

(o) + (o) = (oo)

(1) + (1) = (2)

(o) + (o) =/= (ooo)

(1) + (1) =/= (3)

From these simple statements one can ascertain our symbols for the numbers 1,2 & 3, along with our mathematical symbols of addition, equals and does-not equal.

Oh!

Good to know that somewhere, some schools still teach one of the basics!

If you look at my 12:48:53 post, you will notice that I made the same argument that 2+2=5 could be a true statement, for very high values of 2. (math geek here, too).

BUT, in my example, the basic idea is that (o) represents a single object or unit (example: a rock). So you`re only dealing with natural numbers. (a rock plus a rock equals two rocks, but does not equal three rocks)

From natural numbers you could advance to integers. Eventually to rational (fractional) numbers.

Thus the very basic logic can be built on to develop more complicated language.

Well, they still `present` math, but in order to avoid hurting some idiots self-esteem, the teachers are not allowed to keep grades.

Teacher: "Little Johnnie, what is two plus two."

Johnnie: "Uh, seven?"

Teacher (old style): "I`m sorry Johnnie, that`s incorrect. Please study more."

Teacher (new style): "That`s great, Johnnie! You just got the correct answer to another question."

(and before anyone says `that`s asinine`, please realize that is how some teachers have been instructed to handle incorrect answers).

Any student excelling in math must never be congratulated, as this will make the lazy little students `feel less capable`.

Or as some idiot teacher put it: `You are unique...just like everyone else.` (which is another way of saying, no one is unique)