nshepperd comments on How to Convince Me That 2 + 2 = 3 - Less Wrong

52 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 27 September 2007 11:00PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (384)
Tags: bayesian philosophy religion

Comments (384)

Sort By: Old

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: dxu 22 March 2015 04:00:30PM *  0 points [-]

I imagine you'd need a rather more devious brain modification to prevent one from carrying out these steps correctly, in such a way that the result is SSS0.

All right. Let me take a stab at it.

S(0) + SSS0

(move the S to the right)

Okay. Following you so far...

0 + SSSS0

Eh? Where'd you get the extra "S" from?

(This hack would have the unfortunate side effect of making every addition with at least one term less than or equal to 3 and a result greater than 3 come out to 1 less than it's supposed to, however. If you wanted to only make 2 + 2 = 3, and preserve all other additions as-is, I can't think of any brain hack that could do that. That's not to say no such hack is possible; I'm sure one is, but I just can't think of one.)

Comment author: nshepperd 23 March 2015 02:35:05AM *  0 points [-]

This hack would have the unfortunate side effect of making every addition with at least one term less than or equal to 3 and a result greater than 3 come out to 1 less than it's supposed to, however.

I think it would even result in any addition with a term ≤ 3 and result > 3 come out to exactly 3, unless you have some sort of rule for S + SSS0 sometimes becoming SSSS0 instead of SSS0.

Note also that an enterprising soul can line up the two steps:

S0 + SSS0
⁠ 0 + SSS0

And notice that they are confused, because the SSS0's are identical, even though they shouldn't be, because Sx + y = x + Sy was the rule applied and Sy ≠ y.

A brain hack that made all of this work is surely possible, of course, but it seems like it would have to be a bit more systematic.

Comment author: dxu 27 March 2015 10:41:56PM 0 points [-]

A brain hack that made all of this work is surely possible, of course, but it seems like it would have to be a bit more systematic.

That seems fair. Would you agree that my original point (that your grasp of logic stems from a physical brain and can be muddled) stands, though?

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit