I seem to recall that someone stated that 1+1=4... couldn't find the post but here is why I think that it isn't true...
I had dig back into my Math books and history but here is how I rationalize it...
For anyone who is/was a math major or minor at University, I'm guessing they took (or should have taken) math theory I and II
If not, everyone should be familiar with numbers of any number system being based on the concept of positional notation
Positional notation is a method of representing numbers greater than the sum of the basic digits of a number system
There are an infinite number of number systems but the most common are the unary, binary, octal, decimal and hexadecimal
The greatest number of digits in a number system, that I know of, is 64 digits developed by, I think, the Sumerians or Babylonians
The unary number system = 1 digit = 0, the binary number system = the 2 digits 0,1, the octal = 8 digits = 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
The decimal and hexadecimal number systems should be already known
Positional notation is the arranging of the number being represented (whether horz, vert, etc.) as a sequence of the number system's basic
digits in orders of magnitude
For example: The decimal number system number 110 can be written as (1x100)+(1x10)+(0x1)
So why is 1+1 not equal to 4 regardless of the number system in use?
Since, by definition, the unary number 0 = nothing or the absence of something, then (nothing+nothing)= nothing ergo 0+0 = 0
Since by definition, the binary number system's digits 0= nothing and 1= a single something, then 0+0=0 and 1+1= two somethings or 1+1= 2
I can go on and on but the upshot is,
unless a number system's basic digits are redefined, then 1+1 does not equal 4 but rather 1+1 does equal 2
By the way, the number 1 has been defined as a single thing at least since the ancient Egyptians used a single stone, a single finger, a single anything, etc.
