# 2+2=4

Now hold on a cotton pickin' minute thar Pardner! The Pythagorean Theorem is not meant to be used on a 3 dimensional problem. To fault it for what it was not meant to do is a logical fallacy. Just read about these on another thread!

To begin to deal with problems in 3 & 4 dimensions and beyond requires different levels of mathematics. Mathematics most certainly works. It is the supposed 'theory of everything' that is the unknown. No one has been able to put it all together yet. That is irrelevant with the certainty of Euclidian Geometry. Which remains as solid and stable as ever.

This is where we have to be careful of not confusing what we know we know with what we know we don't know.

I'm safe, I don't know what I don't know...I just know it is a lot more than what I know.

G-Knot, I think you're defending something that was never attacked. I think that you and I clearly said the same things, it can't be used in all places at all times as if dimensions were constant. If my ladder was placed on one star and was leaning on another we have to account that a-b, b-c and c-a aren't going to be what we expect and work around that.

You Keep Using That Word 'Clearly', I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means.

that is a two dimensional problem in three dimensional space....

now if you were to try to use it to calculate the distances between London, Brisbane, and Hong Kong not through the earth (the two dimensional plane) but on the earth in a three dimensional manner, it would fail you.

me thinks that is the difference and the point I was using a logical fallacy to make.

Could one of you explain how what I'm saying is different from what you two are saying?

'Kay, Tea.
Let me explain.
[pause]
No, there is too much. Let me sum up.

Wil and I are not saying the same thing. Wil said "and that Pythagorean Theorem works in 2 dimensions, not properly in the warped world of 3 dimensions nor in 4, 5"

I replied that faulting the Phythy Theorem for not working on a 3D problem was not fair, as that theorem was not made to solve 3D problems, only 2D ones.

Wil also said our math no longer works because of the Theory of Everything. I disagreed again, stating, essentially, that I believe Wil had it backwards. It is the ToE that is flawed, not the math.

This is the only significant difference in what all of us are saying. We all agree on what the math can do and can not do. I just say that faulting the math for not being able to do what it was never created to do is not a valid argument for his supposition.

'Kay, Tea.
Let me explain.
[pause]
No, there is too much. Let me sum up.

Wil and I are not saying the same thing. Wil said "and that Pythagorean Theorem works in 2 dimensions, not properly in the warped world of 3 dimensions nor in 4, 5"

I replied that faulting the Phythy Theorem for not working on a 3D problem was not fair, as that theorem was not made to solve 3D problems, only 2D ones.

Wil also said our math no longer works because of the Theory of Everything. I disagreed again, stating, essentially, that I believe Wil had it backwards. It is the ToE that is flawed, not the math.

This is the only significant difference in what all of us are saying. We all agree on what the math can do and can not do. I just say that faulting the math for not being able to do what it was never created to do is not a valid argument for his supposition.
I have a theory that the Hebrew letters form pictures that also have mathematical equations to form the pictures and give you the data of perfect immortal elements.