You are viewing the historical archive of The Philosophy Forum.
For current discussions, visit the live forum.
Go to live forum

Counting squares

Umonsarmon November 05, 2020 at 16:23 3125 views 9 comments
Greetings all
Has anyone noticed that squares can break the laws of addition because squares can combine to create more squares. For example if I'm counting squares the sum 1+1+1+1 in square can either be 4 or 5 depending on how the squares are arranged. If the squares are arranged in the form of a square then you have an additional square and the answer is 5 but if you have gaps between the squares then the answer is 4. This means that even the statement 4=4 when using squares is wrong because their is a set of potential answers depending on how many squares you are using and how they are arranged. This creates a sort of indeterminincy in mathematics because the outcome of the answer is undecided until the squares you are counting are put in some sort of order..

Comments (9)

jgill November 05, 2020 at 19:43 #468844
You need to work on an axiomatic foundation for counting squares.
TheMadFool November 06, 2020 at 06:06 #469004
Reply to Umonsarmon Very interesting. I applaud the spirit if not the success of the enterprise. Paraphrasing scientist Laurence Kraus, scientists go to work everyday with the hope and intent of proving their colleagues wrong.

I suppose the whole idea of thinking in any field according to Kraus and probably most thinkers past, present and future is in small part an exercise in building and fixing theories, old and new, but in large part consists of taking the wrecking ball to existing paradigms and breaking them.

Do continue this task - you might break math and that would be something very interesting to watch and also very satisfying given that I've always envied the mathematically talented lot.

khaled November 06, 2020 at 06:41 #469011
Reply to Umonsarmon Addition is different form adding things together. 1+1=2. Even if I place 2 rats in a room and come back a week later and find 20, 1+1 still equals 2. They're completely different unrelated statements.
Umonsarmon November 06, 2020 at 08:53 #469065
It depends on what you are adding together. 1+1 does not always equal 2. If your counting cuboids rather than squares, then you can add the cuboids together in such a way that they create 3.. It depends on what your unit is. If my unit is a square or a triangle for that matter then the result stands. Remember before you even get to the point of adding something together you have to have the identity that x=x but with some shapes this breaks down totally like triangles and squares i.e 4={4,5}. If i'm using circles for example then I can't arrange circles in any way that affects x=x no matter how I arrange them. With other shapes you can. All addition is is the act of adding 1 quantity to another and then summing the result. If I'm adding squares, triangles or cuboids then it all goes pear shaped so to speak..Your rats example is a different story. Your units are rats and initially the answer is 2 but this changes over time. With squares and triangles the result is instant and subject to other factors.
Deleted User November 06, 2020 at 15:50 #469148
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Umonsarmon November 06, 2020 at 15:54 #469150
If I'm counting squares then a squares a square. Squares combine to make other squares. How many squares are there on a chess board? its more than 64. I define a square as a shape with 4 linear sides of equal length. When I add them together I can create more from less. Somethings can be made from parts. A car is made of loads of parts but they still sum to make a car. A square can be made from parts but those parts can be squares :)
Key November 06, 2020 at 16:05 #469152
You can make things from things.
Squares. Line segments. Points.
Anything if you zoom out far enough.
You just need to have a split perspective.
EnPassant November 09, 2020 at 21:14 #470212
If the greatest common divisor of a and b is 1 and ab is a square, both a and b are squares.
With the same restrictions, if [math]ab^2 = c^2, a[/math] is a square.
Srap Tasmaner November 10, 2020 at 00:38 #470242
Reply to Umonsarmon

The math is interesting, but there's just no philosophical issue here.

If I were you, I'd look at rectangles instead. Maybe have a look at partitions too.