C’mon Llama, you are quite capable of putting words into the right context without having every detail spelled out for you.
The exception is the proof that it is subjective, taken from the words of the guy who said it is not subjective.
1 Like
This is why tax accountants charge a lot of their services… “You lot” (non-accountants) don’t understand so they confuse the fuck out of you & charge you to save you money.
Simples.
I can, doesn’t mean I’m not going to be pedantic & point out things I disagree with/think are errors. Especially if it’s that or I “work” from home.
It’s his kryptonite. In a thread where he’s already had the same discussion a hundred times, his brain makes him be pointlessly pedantic (oh, that was an especially good bit of alliteration, yay me!).
On a different, theoretical, note; if everyone dislikes a thing, is saying it’s bad still subjective? I mean, it’s feelings, right?
1 Like
I would say “yes.” because unless it can be proven to be objectively “bad”, then it’s still a subjective thing. I think everyone can agree that 2+2 = 4, that’s been proven to be objectively true, even if the entire world decided that they were unhappy that 2+2=4 and wanted 2+2 to be 22, it would be subjective because it’s a) not a fact and b) based in feeling.
All (sane) people have the feeling that bathing in molten iron is a bad idea for your health.
The insane guy proves the feeling is subjective, but by jumping into molten iron, he also proves that the subjective feeling of the majority is based on some objective fact.
Fun and boredom is never objective, and even the most fun activity can bore a person after continued exposition or based on the mood.
2 Likes
I feel so “seen” & understood… 
And yet one can prove (objectively) that 2+2!=4. Yay maths!
Fair.
2 Likes
If I’m not mistaken, that would have to be done in a different base than base 10, specifically base 3 or base 4, right? With base 3 being 0, 1, 2 and base 4 being 0, 1, 2, 3
Since 2+2 would = 4 which would have to be represented by 11 or 10 respectively?
In the case of using base 3 or base 4, there would not even be the digit 4.
If you don’t mark the bases when using different bases, it is considered an invalid term, for all I recall.
And even if you calculate 2 + 2 with a base of 3, it would equal 4 on base 10.
In standard arithmetic, you cannot proof that 2+2!=4.
You don’t need to do that. Just pick 2 squares, place 2 squares at the top and you end up with 5 squares 
Always this… “Game has lost 90% of players within short time”
People her justifing: “Naaa, 90 % is not a high number, thats subjective. Maybe it is for YOU a high number, but not for me…” 
Yeah, yeah, we get it, big numbers/small numbers/sky, falling, news at eleven/wake up sheeple.
All that said, do you know what is really important? All the streamers of diablo-likes mispronouncing the word, “melee”? Drives me crazy. It’s not ‘mealy’ like the worm! It’s “may-lay”! Say it! MAAAYYYYYY LAAAYYYYYYY!!! AHHHH!
1 Like
It’s not dead. It just needs a little community organization. Better league structure. Stuff like that. Throw in some more ladders, rebrand the cycle stuff, etc.
The game itself is very fun still (to me at least)
That’s not really 2+2 though anymore.
If you have two squares with side length ‘x’, and add two more squares with side length ‘x’ on top, you have 4 squares with side length ‘x’ and one square with side length ‘2x’, which is twice the size of the other squares.
I know, it was just a joke. Didn’t you see the laughing emoji at the end? 
1 Like
Yeah, I know. But it’s still worth exploring! Math is fun!
1 Like
I was actually about to go back and say that even if 4 was represented as 10 or 11, it still values at 4. So even then it’s still 4 lol.
Math: “you cannot prove, with standard arithmetic, that 2+2!=4”
English: “Ghoti* is pronounced ‘Fish’ and I can prove it.”
Edit: it’s Ghoti not Ghost lol
1 Like
Objection! Subjective!
3 Likes
It is fun. For example, there’s mathematical proof that 0.(9) (meaning infinite nines) = 1. Meaning that they’re actually the exact same number, mathematically, not just rounding.
1 Like
Does this have to do that 1/3 = 0.(3) and 3 times 1/3 = 1?
I think what this actually proves is that our math does not include ‘infinity’. It does include, ‘there is nothing between these two numbers (but they are still two different numbers)’. Which is really interesting in itself as their is (almost) always something between two numbers.
But my advanced mathematics days were a long time ago.
Edit: I guess I’m thinking of calculus, not set theory (which clearly has infinity)