Two Plus Two Equals Four

I hold that two plus two equals four.

Definitions:

One, a single discrete thing.
plus, addition / combination of things.
two, one plus one.
three, one plus two.
four, one plus three.

We see that four is one plus three, three is one plus two, and two is one plus one.

So we see that, four is:
one plus one plus one plus one.
Also,
two plus one plus one
Also,
two plus two

Q.E.D.

Alternatively,
I = one
II = two
III = three
IIII = four

Where 'I' denotes some single discrete thing.

II plus II equals IIII

II
+
II
IIII

Two plus two, thusly equals four.

For the sake of argument we are using base ten math, to a standard power, as typically understood by common people, with number denoting there commonly understood terms.

Also for the argument, you are to address me as Sir Floppypants, and began every verb with a capital letter.

Ok, Tatarize (I will not address you as you have wished), I will joyfully debate you that your statement "two plus two equal four" is an incorrect statement.

Although you have supported your claim by providing the definition of numerical numbers and the literary word "plus," you have failed to define what you mean by the term equals.

Other uses:

~Having the same privileges, status, or rights
~Being the same for all members of a group
~Having the requisite qualities, such as strength or ability, for a task or situation
~Adequate in extent, amount, or degree.
~Having the requisite qualities, such as strength or ability, for a task or situation
~Tranquil; equable
~impartial
~Showing or having no variance in proportion, structure, or appearance

It has been argued that equal is an absolute term—two quantities either are or are not equal—and hence cannot be qualified as to degree. Therefore one cannot logically speak of a more equal allocation of resources among the departments. However, this usage was accepted by 71 percent of the Usage Panel in an earlier survey. Objections to the more equal construction rest on the assumption that the mathematical notion of equality is appropriate to the description of a world where the equality of two quantities is often an approximate matter, and where statements of equality are always relative to an implicit standard of tolerance. When someone says The two boards are of equal length, we assume that the equality is reckoned to some order of approximation determined by the context; if we did not, we would be required always to use nearly equal when speaking of the dimensions of physical objects. What is more, we often speak of the equality of things that cannot be measured quantitatively, as when we say The college draft was introduced in an effort to make the teams in the National Football League as equal as possible, or The candidates for the job should all be given equal consideration. In all such cases equality is naturally a gradient notion and can be modified in degree. This much is evident from the existence of the word unequal, for the prefix un- attaches only to gradient adjectives. We say unmanly but not unmale; and the word uneven can be applied to a surface (whose evenness may be a matter of degree) but not to a number (whose evenness is an either/or affair). · The adverb equally is generally regarded as redundant when used in combination with as. In an earlier survey, 63 percent of the Usage Panel found the following examples unacceptably redundant: Experience is equally as valuable as theory. Equally as important is the desire to learn. To eliminate the redundancy, equally should be deleted from the first example and as from the second. The solution to this usage problem usually involves using as alone when a comparison is explicit and equally alone when it is not.

Furthermore (another word for plus) you are incorrect Floppypants.

No Sir Floppypants and no capital verbs. *sigh*

Then to top it all off you made a argument devoid of any proper sensibility.

"Having the same", "being the same", "equable", "no variance". Equal, as it pertains to number, is well understood as what it is "denoting there commonly understood terms" -- so the value of two combined with two must equal the value of four.

II II = IIII
Both "having the same" number with "no variance".

Secondly, I should note there is a clear and difference between equivocating about some random term and actually having a counter argument. Even if equal could mean something else, what would those something elses make two plus two equal if not four? Two plus two equals three plus one, however one is forced to note that three plus one equals four.

Due to the factual nature of this, it seems a weak argument on your part to object to the commonly understood nature of the word equals. Further, despite this equivocation, nothing negates the clear and obvious objection that this doesn't negate my original arguments on the subject.

Further, I cite Google as an authority. A google search for "two plus two" will give the commonly understood meaning of the terms.

http://www.google.com...
two plus two = four

I have proved this recursively, algorithmically, pictorially and by authority. You have made one vain attempt to equivocate about a word.

Your argument cannot succeed.

You can come out of the corner now...

Once again, I will point to the fact that you successfully (although I will second the user comment about the usage of incorrect roman numerals) defined the terms of numerical values and the term plus.

However, you failed to define the term equals for your debate. Why define all terms but one?

Look, if I stumbled upon this debate and know nothing about this issue for reasons of:

a. being uneducated (you assume all viewers are all-knowing)
b. cultural background (language barrier)

"Secondly, I should note there is a clear and difference between equivocating about some random term and actually having a counter argument. Even if equal could mean something else, what would those something elses make two plus two equal if not four?"

Actually no, refer to my definitions above that have nothing to do with sum or value.

Finally, when you claim Google as your ultimate authority...you have already lost my friend.

I look forward to debating with you again, but remember to cover all points of interest.